Monday, July 16, 2012

Eggs Over My Sami - Part One

Have you ever been
embarrassed because you said something before thinking about what you were
going to say? If so, then you have some idea of the embarrassment that Muslim
dawagandist Sami Zataari experiences on a regular basis when trying to defend
Islam or attack Christianity. The following post will discuss a recent incident
where Sami ended up with egg on his face, and how subsequent attempts to clean
it off only ended up rubbing it in.

Recently Sami wrote an article
attacking the wisdom and justice of what God revealed through Moses in the
Torah in regard to cases of seduction and/or rape of unbetrothed virgins. I
replied to that article here.
Sami has now “replied”
to my article and, although he ignored most of what I said in my reply and
didn’t even so much as try to renew what he originally touted as his major
argument, he did pick out handful of things that he thought he could reply to,
but not without significant distortion of what I was arguing in the process. All
of this is ironic since in his latest attack on the Law of Moses – which his
own false prophet claimed to believe in (Abu Dawud, 38.4434.4431), said he came
to confirm (Q. 3:3-4, 46:12, 46:30), and told Jews and Christians to judge by (Q.
5:43-47) – he titled me a “wanna-be apologist” and insinuated that I don’t know
what a refutation is. Someone should take Sami aside and tell him that a
refutation is not: ignoring most of what your opponent says, distorting what
remains of your opponents argument, and failing to defend what you heralded as
your strongest point. In any event, I am happy to hold onto Sami’s title for a
day, a title he has been passing around for years with Nadir Ahmed and Osama
Abdullah, because it affords me an opportunity to show that Sami’s reasoning is
so abysmal that he can’t refute a wanna-be. When I am finished, I will of
course insist that Sami take his well-earned and well-worn title back. Besides,
I wouldn’t want Sami to be empty handed when Nadir and Osama come calling
because they want their turn wearing a belt that was obviously tailor made for
the three of them.

According to Sami’s
original argument, the passages in question concerns rape, an act (typically)
involving a male forcing himself upon a non-consenting female. This is what Sami
thought could be gleaned from the following case law:

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin,
who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels
of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot
divorce her all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Although I continued to
use the word rape in my reply to Sami, I made it clear at the outset that I
disagree with what he clearly intends when he uses the term. I even linked to
an article by Sam Shamoun that goes into the matter in great detail (*). But Sami
ignored this all-important starting point in his response, so let me at least
briefly spell it out for Sami before I proceed.

The previous verses in
the book of Deuteronomy deal with the issue of adultery between two consenting
parties, where at least the girl is already married. The penal sanction in
cases of this sort is death for both the man and the woman:

If a man is found lying (shakab) with the wife of another man,
both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you
shall purge the evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 22:22)

The same thing applies
if a man has consensual sex with a girl who is betrothed to a man, as the
verses that immediately follow show:

If there is a betrothed
virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies (shakab) with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of
that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because
she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he
violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy
22:23-24)

In cases where a man
forces a betrothed girl to have sexual relations with him, the penalty is death
for the man but not for the girl, for only the man is guilty of wrongdoing:

But if in the open
country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her (chazaq) and lies (shakab) with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But
you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense
punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and
murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the
betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
(Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

It is clear from the
above that in cases of adultery and rape the penalty is death for the offending
parties or party, not marriage or merely paying a fine.

In contrast to the
above, when a man takes a girl who is not betrothed and has sex with her, where
it is assumed that she complied or consented to the act since she is not said
to have cried out, and also because the verse speaks of the man and the woman BOTH
being “discovered” or “found,” an observation strengthened by a comparison with
verse 22, where a man is said to be “found” having consensual sex with another
man’s wife, the penalty is different. In such cases principal (though not
exclusive) blame is laid upon the man who, though the girl consented, is
considered to have seduced and violated her by taking her and laying with her without
the consent of her father, under whose authority she was because unbetrothed,
and whose right it was to give her away in marriage.

If a man meets a virgin
who is not betrothed, and seizes (taphas)
her and lies (shakab) with her, AND THEY ARE FOUND, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of
the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he
has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

The closest analogy to
this in western societies is what is called statutory rape, where it is called
rape not on the grounds that the man who violated the girl forced her to do
what she did not want, but on the grounds that she was under age. The disparity
between this and what the Bible teaches is that “rape” is determined not on the
basis of age as such but on the grounds that the girl, as unbetrothed, is still
under the authority of her father and therefore incapable of independently giving her consent to the
man. This is similar to the fact that a girl’s oath is not binding if her father
upon hearing of it does not consent (Numbers 30:3-5).

That this involves
consensual sex is also clear from the parallel verse in the Torah that I
pointed out to Sami, which he dutifully ignored in his response, where the man
is said to have seduced (not forced; chazaq)
the woman:

If a man SEDUCES (pathah) a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay
a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to
him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)

Dr.
Bahnsen’s comments on all of this are on point:

“If a man finds a girl
who is an unbetrothed virgin, an he lays hold of her and lies with her,
and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s
father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled
her; he may not put her away all his days.” [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]

This is the literal
translation of the Hebrew. Unfortunately, some commentators and Bible
translations….make the mistake of interpreting these words as referring
to the use of force and thus to raping a virgin. Such a view is quite
unacceptable, for a number of reasons. (1) This would lay a burden and
penalty on the woman who had no part or consent in the act, which is as unfair
and senseless as punishing the victim of attempted murder.

(2) The Hebrew word tapas
(“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something,
grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It
is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword
(Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars
(Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking”
God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8).
Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. I Kings 11:30), even as Moses
“took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17). People are “caught” (I
Kings 20:18), even as cities are “captured” (Deut. 20:19; Isa. 36:1). An
adulterous wife may not have been “caught” in the act (Num. 5:13). In all
of these instances it is clear that, while force may come into the picture from
further description, the Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in
itself indicate anything about the use of force.

This verb used in
Deuteronomy 22:28 is different from the verb used in verse 25 (chazak, from
the root meaning “to be strong, firm”) which can mean “to seize” a bear and
kill it (I Sam. 17:35; cf. 2 Sam. 2:16; Zech. 14:13), “to prevail” (2 Sam.
24:4; Dan. 11:7), “to be strong” (Deut. 31:6; 2 Sam. 2:7), etc. Deuteronomy
22:25 thus speaks of a man finding a woman and “forcing her.” Just three
verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply “take hold of” her –
indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in
verse 25 (viz., rape).

(3) The Hebrew word
anah (“humble, afflict,” emphasized above) used in Deuteronomy 22:29 can
sometimes be used for forcing a woman (Gen. 34:2; Jud. 20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14,
22, 32; Lam. 5:11) but need not indicate a forcible rape, which is clear
from the Deuteronomy passage itself at verse 24. It can simply mean to
dishonor, mistreat, or afflict (e.g., Ex. 1:11; Gen. 16:6; Ex. 22:22; Deut.
8:2; Ps. 119:67), and in sexual settings can denote other kinds of sin than
rape (Ezek. 22:10, 11).

We can agree with the
reasoning of James Jordan: “At first sight, this seems to allow for rape of an
unbetrothed girl. In Hebrew, however, the verb ‘seize’ is a weaker verb
than the verb for ‘force’ used in the same passage (v. 25) to describe
rape. This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam.
13:11). Implied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion
that she fought back with anything more than a token resistance. Modern
random rape would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under
the death penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27” (The Law of the Covenant, p.
149).

Accordingly, one will
find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape.
For instance:

Meredith Kline: “The
seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the
customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the
Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

Matthew Henry: “. . . if
he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to
divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she
might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

J. A. Thompson:
“Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal
obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal
bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send
her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p.
237).

In Israel’s Laws and
legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical
Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining
to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29
(pp. 117-118).

Keil and Delitzsch
classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,”
comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part
of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical
Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

Even if one has some
question about the applicability of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the clear and
decisive command from God when a man has seduced a virgin is found in Exodus
22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies
with her, he shall surely pay her dowry to make her his wife. If her
father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out money
according to the dowry for virgins.”

In this text there is no
question whatsoever of forcible rape. The Hebrew verb used to describe
the sin (italicized in the quotation above) is patah, used elsewhere for
“coaxing” (Jud. 14:15), “luring” (Jud. 16:5; Hos. 2:14), and “enticing” (Prov.
1:10; 16:29). When a man gets a virgin to consent to have sexual
relations with him, he is morally obligated to marry her – as the following
commentators indicate:

John Calvin: “The remedy
is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and
also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards
cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on
the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp.
83-84.

J. C. Connell: “Although
she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong
shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment
of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson,
p. 122).

Adam Clarke: “This was
an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against
seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take
advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry,
if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: “If a man
seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her
father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series,
p. 173).

James Jordan: “the
punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father
objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The
Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.:
“Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not
engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to
marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).

The above by itself does
away with Sami’s makeshift argument, as well as his question about whether I
would give my daughter in marriage to someone who “raped” her,

Mr. Anthony, if a man raped your daughter, would
you ask her if she wanted to marry him? And if he she refused, would you be
satisfied by merely giving him a fine that he has to pay you?

for as is apparent, the
case in question is not rape in the sense that Sami is using the term, as is
especially obvious from another article Sami recently wrote, where he proves
that he completely glossed over the article from Sam that I linked to that
would have explained this to him, thus justifying my remark that Sami speaks
first and thinks (or is forced to think) later:

Sam Shamoun and his fellow missionary Anthony
Rogers recently displayed their lack of critical thinking skills when they
equated the act of consensual marriage, to that of a rapist marrying his rape
victim. So in the eyes of these missionaries, consensual actions, are equal to
nonconsensual actions, such as forced sex, i.e. rape. (*)

Sami’s entire argument
(and the strength of his question to me), therefore, rests on equivocation, which
is notoriously fallacious. This is the sort of thing for which a person would
get laughed off of a freshmen debate team (though not, apparently, the team at
MDI).

In addition to the
above, Sami originally argued that according to Mosaic Law the raper had to
marry the rape victim (“the punishment for the captor is that he must marry the
girl”), AND the rape victim had to marry the raper (“So the virgin must marry the rapist”). So per Sami’s
original reading of the text, the penal sanction for raping a woman was mutual
and rested on both parties.

Unfortunately for Sami,
as I pointed out, this isn’t all that the Torah tells us, for the parallel or
equivalent statute as given in Exodus, quoted already above, tells us that the
father can refuse:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not
engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely REFUSES to give her
to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. (Exodus
22:16-17)

And since, as I also
pointed out, Israelite women also had a say in who they would marry, as is
evident from the fact that the person had to be “pleasing in their eyes” (e.g. Numbers
36:6), Sami was clearly shown to be wrong when he said that both parties to a
case of seduction were mutually obligated to contract marriage.

But in his response Sami,
still trying to get mileage out of his equivocal understanding of the kind of rape
that is in view, pretends that I have simply agreed with him:

So therefore he agrees, that the Bible does teach a rapist
must marry the victim, his only rebuttal is that she has to agree to it! So the
main argument stands: THE BIBLE HAS A LAW THAT CALLS FOR THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN
THE RAPIST AND RAPE VICTIM.

But for anyone who can
follow an argument, I clearly have not “simply” agreed with Sami, and that for
at least two reasons:

1) Sami originally made
a compound (not a simple) claim, i.e. the rapist has to marry the victim and the victim has to marry the rapist,
and at the very least it must be seen I have denied the latter part of Sami’s
claim: both the woman and her father can refuse to give their consent to one
who had seduced and enticed the girl into having sex, thus taking advantage of
her youth and gullibility.

and,

2) I do not believe the
Bible is talking about rape in the sense Sami is using the term; so I can
hardly be agreeing with what Sami means when he speaks of the Bible calling for
a “rapist” to marry his victim.

In addition to the
above, Sami at the first argued that instead of requiring a seducer to marry
the girl he sleeps with the Lord should have given an incentive to other men to
marry girls who have had their virginity taken from them.

In reply to this I
pointed out that the Lord did Sami one better: He gave a law that was
calculated to dissuade men from even taking and laying with girls who have not
been given to them in marriage. This is the whole point of the prescribed penal
sanctions.

According to the law, a
man who takes a girl not betrothed or married to him can either have a dowry
taken from him without the benefit of getting her as a wife in return; or he
can be required to marry her without the right of divorce.

The serious implications
of this were clearly spelled out for Sami. In spite of this, Sami in his reply
hoped that by some fancy footwork or verbal legerdemain he could pretend that
this does not involve any punishment(s) worthy of the name, or that the punishment(s)
is(are) not commensurate with the crime (which Sami believes was “forced sex”).
Here are some choice quotes from Sami:

But the father may also choose to not marry him to
his daughter, and he will only have to pay a fine. So
according to Anthony, one can rape a
lady, and just get off with a fine!
He basically simply had to pay for
his rape services. How nice. (Italics and bold mine)

This is where Anthony can’t keep up with his own
rubbish arguments, according to Anthony, MARRIAGE IS NOT AN OBLIGATION, it is
an OPTION, and if the marriage is not
done, he only has to pay a fine.
Tell me, does that sound like a calculated law to discourage men from raping, where his only punishment is a fine? Wow, what a great calculated
discouragement from rape! (Italics and bold mine)

The biggest laugh at all of this is that Anthony
claims I have an inferior moral sense, when he’s the one trying to justify a
rapist marrying his rape victim, and when he is the one saying the punishment for a rapist could potentially only be a fine. Yes, and I am the
one with a moral inferior sense. (Italics and bold mine)

Remembering of course
that the law in question is not about rape in any unqualified sense, and much
less in the sense that Sami is thinking of it, there is no “only,” “just” or
“simply” about the prescribed penalty as Sami flippantly states. The punishment
of foregoing a wife but still having to pay 50 shekels was no light matter for
the average Israelite. 50 shekels was a hefty sum of money that did not come
easily for most people in ancient Israel.

Ordinarily a person
would negotiate with the father on the dowry for a girl. In cases of a man seductively
imposing himself on another man’s daughter without his consent, the dowry was
necessarily high and non-negotiable. As one commentator explains:

Let us consider the case of seduction.
There is no doubt that the father, under the jurisdiction of the judges, was
allowed to establish a bride price requirement for the seducer, and even
prohibit the marriage after having collected it. Obviously, only the State
could have lawfully enforced such a penalty.

When the State enters the picture to
enforce a private decision, there must be upper limits on the punishment if
liberty under predictable law is to be preserved. At the same time, the penalty
must be high enough to deter the immoral behavior. Thus, the maximum bride
price that could be imposed by the father with the consent of the judges could
and would be different from normally negotiated bride prices. We know what that
upper limit was: 50 shekels of silver. I call this compulsory maximum the formal
bride price, in contrast to the normal or negotiated bride price, in which
the State was not involved. It is specified in Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin,
which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be
found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty
shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he
may not put her away all his days.

The formal bride price of 50 shekels of
silver specified here was far higher than the common dowry in Israel. This was
a great deal of money. It was not required of every suitor. The Old Testament
did not establish a fixed price so high that only a few women could have become
wives, with most of them being forced by a government- imposed price floor to
settle for status as concubines (wives without dowries) instead. What the law
did was to establish a penalty price so high that it discouraged seduction. It
also discouraged false accusations of whoredom.

The threat of the imposition of the
formal bride price was designed to restrain the present-orientation of the
couple - in this case, the lure of instant sexual gratification. The bride price
jumped automatically to 50 shekels of silver in such instances. This economic
threat forced marriage arrangements into specific patterns as family-authorized
covenants, with the parents and older brothers of the girl as the agents with
primary authority to inaugurate or veto her decision. This threat also forced
irresponsible, short-sighted young men to save for the future, to develop good
character traits. The normal bride price was a covenantal screening instrument;
the formal bride price was a covenantal disciplining instrument.

The seducer placed himself outside the
normal competitive position of a suitor. He was in no legal position to bargain
effectively with the girl's father. Shechem pleaded: 'Ask me never so much
dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me
the damsel to wife" (Gen 34:12). The father of a seduced girl was in a
position to demand up to 50 shekels of silver from the young man, which
probably would have involved many years of servitude on his part, unless his
family was rich. The seducer could even be re- quired to pay her father the 50
shekels of silver, and then not be allowed to marry the girl. (G. North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus
[Institute for Christian Economics, 1990], pp. 648-649)

To see how high this was
we only need to consider that: 50 shekels was two and a half times the price
paid for Joseph when he was sold into slavery hundreds of years earlier
(Genesis 37:28); it was also the very amount exacted by Menahem from “all the
mighty men of wealth” in order to pay Pul, the King of Assyria (1 Kings
15:17-22). To quote North again:

What was the value of 50 shekels of
silver? We cannot know for sure, since at different times in the ancient world,
silver's value would have fluctuated, just as it fluctuates today. We know that
the atonement money paid by Israelite adult males when they were numbered for
military service was half a shekel (Ex. 30:15). If this was half a shekel of
silver, then the maximum bride payment was a hundred times this large. An ox
that killed another person's bondservant brought a payment of 30 shekels of
silver to the owner of the servant (Ex. 21:32). An adult male slave was valued
at 50 shekels of silver for the purpose of making a vow payment to the sanctuary
(Lev. 27:3). This was a form of servitude to God. We know that the ownership of
slaves was sufficiently expensive so that very few families could afford them
in the ancient world.

The price of twenty shekels of silver for
a male slave under age twenty (Lev. 27:5) corresponds with the twenty shekels
paid to joseph's brothers by the caravan that bought joseph (Gen. 37:28). This
indicates a remarkably stable monetary system throughout the Middle East, from
joseph's day at least until the giving of the Mosaic law over two centuries
later. Mendelsohn provides slave prices in the surrounding cultures, and these
are reasonably commensurate with the prices listed in Leviticus 27.The purchase
of a slave gained the buyer the net return from a lifetime of service from a
slave. We are not talking about merely a Hebrew's seven-year term of service,
for the caravan bought Joseph for resale into permanent servitude. Thirty
shekels of silver must have been a lot of money; 50 shekels was that much more.
(North, ibid., pp. 656-657)

At
this point Sami think he has already detected a serious flaw in such reasoning,
for he points out that the above would neither be a deterrent nor a serious
punishment for a rich person.

And what if the man is rich? We know many rich men
engage in rape, so paying a fine wouldn’t be a big problem for them as they
would easily be able to afford it, but hey this was a ‘calculated’ law to
discourage men from rape, right…

But
what Sami overlooked is that a rich person who may not be deterred by the
stipulated fine should certainly have been deterred by the fact that the Father
(with the girl’s consent) could determine to force the man to marry his
daughter, something a father would be more inclined to do in light of the man’s
wealth and ability to provide for his daughter, and that without the right of
divorce, which would mean that the man would have the responsibility of
providing for the girl, while yet she would have no necessary reason to submit
to him.

For Sami as a Muslim to
say that this is not a deterrent or a punishment is laughable. What would be
more humiliating to a misogynistic Muslim male than to be absolutely under the
thumb of a woman? What Muslim would give up the great “blessing” of being able
to put a whooping on his wife and threaten her with divorce if she does not
recognize that he has charge over her and if she did not comply with his
demands (Q. 4:34)?

So as it turns out, what
Sami perceived as a problem for Christianity the size of the Grand Canyon turns
out not even to be a crack in the sidewalk. Perhaps the error on his part is
due to the fact that he is looking at the Bible (and the world) through cracked
eggs.

213 comments:

Sami has his good traits... but his bad traits continue to outweigh and outshine the good.

Since David says, "Sami is one of the best Muslim apologists I know of..", what he said previously on one of the ABNSAT "Jesus or Muhammad" shows continues to resound, "But looking at the quality of all the rest of the Muslim apologists, it isn't saying much."

Non sense, why is that Muslims have to go back to old testament when Jewish were living under theocracy, they correctly know we are not under that "testament" or agreement. It was just a shadow for coming of this new testament. It is like talking to a rock which hears not a single word. May be we should try talking by Arabic or in such a style saying "oho you who believe,please listen Christians are not under.....". Oho sorry we were just told no body can deliver or write what ever one verse like .....

The fact of the matter is that when you are defending a lie, you have to take the truth and distort it and ignore all the facts. As clearly the case with Sami, Osama Abdallah and Nadir. At the same time, as we have seen in the past, these same guys will defend a lie from the Quran, Sunna or their hadeth and will present it as the truth where as all the facts speak against it.

I have challenged Sami to come here and defend his garbage so he is aware of this post. In light of this, here is my challenge and question to him:

Sami tried to justify Islamic prostitution, a.k.a. Muta on the grounds that it was/is consensual act since both parties have to agree to it! This why I said that it is unfortunate that this guy actually thinks he is intelligent since this is exactly what takes place in prostitution, namely, both parties must agree to the act of prostitution as well!

So here us my challenge to this gentleman who thinks he has what it takes to attack the Holy Bible and defend Islam. If Sami lived at the time of Muhammad would he have been ok with Muhammad and his followers coming to him and marrying his sisters, daughters, aunts, female cousins etc., for a short period of time, such as 3 days, with the intention that once that period is over they would then divorce his womenfolk, all for a sum of money?

Or would he be offended since he realizes that this would be nothing more than some sex-crazed thugs prostituting his sisters, daughters, female cousins, widows etc. under the guise of temporary marriage?

And I thought his god has power over all things? If so didn’t his god have power over the carnal, lustful desires of his followers? Or was he too impotent to empower them to control their filthy desires!

Sadly, this is the kind of sick demented human beings Muhammad’s teachings produces. May God deliver them from this evil religion.

What I find really hilarious is how members of Sami's own crew find some of his arguments to be completely absurd. For instance, in the comments section Paul Williams really takes Zaatari to school for all to read concerning Zaatari's ridiculous assertion that the followers of James, the brother of our risen Lord, tried to kill the Apostle Paul! Williams pretty much came right out and stated that Zaatari’s argument is completely bogus. Go here and read this for yourselves: http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/06/23/did-followers-of-james-try-to-kill-paul/

Man, don’t you just love it when even team members embarrass each other in full view of everyone?!

This is why I have been saying that Anthony is one the best apologists out there by God's grace, and the best we have on our sites. This is a complete annihilation and humiliation of this wannabe apologist.

What makes sami's assault against the Holy Bible all the more repulsive is that this is the same guy who tried to justify Muhammad prostituting women under the guise of temporary marriages (muta) in his debate with David Wood by arguing that the Arabs were pretty much sex-craved maniacs (my words) who had no self control. Zaatari pretty much ended up proving that his god was too impotent to give Muhammad and his followers the ability to control their filthy desires, and so allowed them to go ahead and treat women as whores for a while in order to gratify themselves! And this is the guy who thinks he has the intelligence to be a debater!

"What makes sami's assault against the Holy Bible all the more repulsive is that this is the same guy who tried to justify Muhammad prostituting women under the guise of temporary marriages (muta) in his debate with David Wood by arguing that the Arabs were pretty much sex-craved maniacs (my words) who had no self control."

RESPONSE:

Mr. Shamoun, why is temporary marriage that was disallowed is prostitution to you? Even in the Hadiths that you bring, the people complained to the Prophet by asking him "should we cut off our ganitals?" He allowed it because it was a transitional period for Muslim men who traveled to distant lands to prevent them from committing adultery and even homosexuality. Let alone bestiality as well.

Your answer might be: GOD's Law doesn't change.

My Answer: Nonesense. GOD Almighty even in the Bible changed His Law for certain situations, and made Divine Laws based on even INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS. For example in Numbers 27:5-11:

5 Moses asked the LORD what should be done, 6 and the LORD answered: 7 Zelophehad's daughters are right. They should each be given part of the land their father would have received. 8 Tell the Israelites that when a man dies without a son, his daughter will inherit his land. 9 If he has no daughter, his brothers will inherit the land. 10But if he has no brothers, his father's brothers will inherit the land. 11And if his father has no brothers, the land must be given to his nearest relative in the clan. This is my law, and the Israelites must obey it."

For more information, the reader can visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/abrogation_in_bible.htm for ample more examples.

So why can't Muta be a certain Law that was put to fix or prevent certain problems?

This is one of the many many points I had in store for you and David. Too bad I missed the flight. Allah Almighty KNows that I honestly tried to come but couldn't.

"You can also silence Obama by pointing out the hilarity of the heavenly disney land he thinks he is destined for."

RESPONSE:

If you're referring to the 72 virgins (whom will be SPOUSES), then I'll gladly refute this and prove that it is very strongly supported even in your scriptures. See Noble Verses 44:54, 52:20 that say that Allah Almighty will WED the Hoor Ein (or Hour Ein) to the Believers.

Every winner of Paradise will be King with servants serving him. GOD ALMIGHTY IS THE KING OF ALL KINGS. Each Winner will have his own Realm, and the smallest one for even the least Believer will be 5 times the size of earth. Life on earth is a PREVIEW to what Heaven and Hell will be like in the Hereafter. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that there will be sex in Heaven, since in your Scriptures it says GOD ALMIGHTY CREATED MAN FROM HIS IMAGE. Yet, man has ganitals and is even addicted to sex here on earth.

By the way, Jesus' Disciples in the Holy Quran were called HAWARIYYEEN. HAWARI is a plural which is derived from HOOR or HOUR. It means spotless ones, or undefiled ones.

Also Mr. Shamoun, why should it come as a surprise to you that Allah Almighty would give temporary Laws to Muslims? Did not the ones before them miserably fail with GOD Almighty while He Sent them many many Revelations?

Islam going through stages (ex: alcohol was allowed and then became disallowed) is something not abnormal. Certainly stages do also exist in the Bible (ex: Abraham and Sarah were a brother and sister, or half-brother half-sister! Yet, in later Law, the marriage between siblings was forbidden).

You might get into Abrogation in the Holy Quran. Here is my response to it:

1- Not a single Islamic scholar agrees with another on which Noble Verse abrogated the other.

2- Abrogation in the Holy Quran is clearly speaking about Abrogating PREVIOUS REVEALTIONS OF PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES. I can thoroughly prove this to you right here if you want. I just don't wan to divert into too many topics at once.

3- Abrogation also means that CERTAIN NOBLE VERSES APPLY TO CERTAIN SITUATIONS. So if there is an exception, then some Laws might get temporarily nullified and be replaced with others.

What did I say about these apologists? Notice how Osama conveniently ignored my question and challenge to Sami by trying to get us to chase after his red herrings. However, I won't let him get away with it and so will now issue my challenge and question to him personally. Here goes:

Osama, if you have lived at the time of Muhammad would you have been ok with Muhammad and his followers casking you to marry your sisters, daughters, aunts, female cousins etc., for a short period of time, such as 3 days, with the intention that once that period is over they would then divorce his womenfolk, all for a sum of money?

Or would you be offended at the idea of some sex-crazed thugs prostituting your sisters, daughters, female cousins, widows etc. under the guise of temporary marriage?

And since you claim that your god has power over all things why didn't he have power over the carnal, lustful desires of these sex-crazed Muhammadans? Was he too impotent to empower them to control their filthy desires!

Osama, count it a blessing that you chickened out from showing up for the debates since you would have gotten utterly humiliated with such a reply.

Yes Osama, your god will give you spotless virgins for you to deflower for all eternity:

Reclining upon the couches lined with silk brocade, and the fruits of the two Gardens will be near at hand. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (HAS OPENED THEIR HYMENS WITH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) before them. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? (In beauty) they are like rubies and coral. S. 55:54-58 Hilali-Khan

Here is how some of Osama's scholars interpret this perverted, pornographic text:

and made them virgins, immaculate - every time their spouses enter them they find them virgins, nor is there any pain [of defloration] - (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=56&tAyahNo=36&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)

And:

Indeed today the inhabitants of Paradise are busy (read fi shughlin or fi shughulin), [oblivious] to what the inhabitants of the Fire are suffering, [busy] delighting in pleasures such as deflowering virgins - not busy with anything wearisome, as there is no toil in Paradise - rejoicing, blissful (fakihuna is a second predicate of inna, the first being fi shugulin, 'busy'); (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=36&tAyahNo=55&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)

In other words, your god will basically turn paradise into a whore house where he again ends up prostituting women much like he did on earth with muta marriages.

My Answer: Nonesense. GOD Almighty even in the Bible changed His Law for certain situations, and made Divine Laws based on even INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS. For example in Numbers 27:5-11:

I say,

What are you talking about?

In order for this to be an abrogation There needs to be an earlier OC law that said that daughters did not inherit property if there are no sons.

Unless I’m mistaken you won’t find such a law.

To accuse God of changing his Law is to make him like a man. It is nothing short of idolatry. To do so with out supporting evidence is just plain foolish.

quote:

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (Jas 1:16-17)

end quote:

I hope you realize how desperate you look when you try and equate God’s unchanging merciful allowance for orphaned maidens with Muhammad’s temporary (or not) fornication loophole for rowdy men who were looking for commitment free sex.

Osama said: "Every winner of Paradise will be King with servants serving him. GOD ALMIGHTY IS THE KING OF ALL KINGS. Each Winner will have his own Realm, and the smallest one for even the least Believer will be 5 times the size of earth. Life on earth is a PREVIEW to what Heaven and Hell will be like in the Hereafter."

Muhammad Replies:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: The VILEST name in Allah's sight is Malik al-Amlak (King of Kings). The narration transmitted on the authority of Shaiba (contains these words): There is no king but Allah, the Exalted and Glorious. Sufyan said: Similarly, the word Shahinshah (is also the VILEST appellation). Ahmad b. Hanbal said: I asked Abu ‘Amr about the meaning of Akhna. He said: The VILEST. (Sahih Muslim, Book 025, Number 5338)

Abu Huraira reported from Allah’s Messenger so many ahadith and one of them was this that Allah's Messenger said: The most WRETCHED person in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection and the WORST person and TARGET OF HIS WRATH would of the person who is called Malik al-Amlak (the King of Kings) for there is NO king but Allah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 025, Number 5339)

So according to Muhammad - Osama is guilty of shirk. Always nice of you to stop by, Osama.

Anthony, Kings were mentioned in the Glorious Quran. For example, Allah Almighty made Jews Kings (5:20). There are also appointed KINGS in the Glorious Quran: 4:54, 2:246-247, 12:76, . The Hadith that you mentioned is talking about the earthly kings who weren't appointed by Allah Almighty.

Sam, the following are your statements and my responses to them:

"Osama, if you have lived at the time of Muhammad would you have been ok with Muhammad and his followers casking you to marry your sisters, daughters, aunts, female cousins etc., for a short period of time, such as 3 days, with the intention that once that period is over they would then divorce his womenfolk, all for a sum of money?"

First of all, it was never about the money. The Prophet said that a couple can wed even with a dowry as low as few date fruits. And the most HONORABLE DOWRY is a Scroll of the Holy Quran as this was the Prophet's dauther's dowry from Ali. Marriage in Islam is sacred. This is why violating it could result in a punishment that is as sever as STONING TO DEATH. I already explained that temporary marriage was allowed for exceptional cases, and the Prophet himself HIGHLY DISCOURAGED IT, SO MUCH THAT HIS FOLLOWERS ASKED HIM IF THEY COULD CUT OFF THEIR GANITALS.

Now as to my sisters, it would've been their personal choices. If it were my daughter(s) where I have the guardian authority over them, then my response to you is this: IF THIS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO FIXING A SOCIAL PROBLEM, THEN I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. Now keep in mind that Muta was mostly, if not fully, was done by women who weren't virgins. It was done almost entirely, if not ENTIRLY BY WIDOWS AND DIVORCEES. Even among the Shias today, virgin girls are almost entirely forbidden from practicing Muta.

"Or would you be offended at the idea of some sex-crazed thugs prostituting your sisters, daughters, female cousins, widows etc. under the guise of temporary marriage?"

I could say the same about some of the Laws in the Bible, and you know it. Again, virgin girls weren't part of the Muta, at least not on the large scale. And by the way, as far as I know, Muta didn't last that long anyway.

"And since you claim that your god has power over all things why didn't he have power over the carnal, lustful desires of these sex-crazed Muhammadans? Was he too impotent to empower them to control their filthy desires!"

Again, the same could be said about the GOD of the Bible, as even my example above shows. Laws sometimes came down by GOD Almighty without occasions, and sometimes they came down BECAUSE OF CERTAIN OCCASIONS. This exists both in Islam and your religion.

"Osama, count it a blessing that you chickened out from showing up for the debates since you would have gotten utterly humiliated with such a reply."

You see, this is where David Wood surpasses you in everything. You couldn't even keep your politeness inside you. Please come to NYC Shamoun. YOU KNOW WHAT? NAME ME A DATE AND TIME AND I'LL MEET YOU AT PALTALK! Let's do it Shamoun. I'll be more than happy to school you on some Bible prostitution and incestuous fantacies where she wished if her boyfriend was her brother, nursed from her mother's breasts, so that IT WOULD BE OK TO TAKE HIM HOME TO "OUR BED" TO HAVE HIM TASTE HER "WINE".

"Yes Osama, your god will give you spotless virgins for you to deflower for all eternity......In other words, your god will basically turn paradise into a whore house where he again ends up prostituting women much like he did on earth with muta marriages.

Yep, they are sure spotless alright!"

RESPONSE:

I assume you can read Arabic, Shamoun. Let's read the following Noble Verses:

‏44:54 كذلك وزوجناهم بحور عين

‏52:20 متكئين على سرر مصفوفة وزوجناهم بحور عين

Tell the non-Arabic people what does زوجناهم mean? Does it not mean to wed? What are you to your wife in Arabic? زوج

No prostitution. And even if they were HAREMS AND NOT SPOUSES, this still doesn't prostitution, because Kings have Harems, and I look forward to having them. But the Holy Quran says SPOUSES AND NOT HAREMS.

>Osama said "He allowed it because it was a transitional period for Muslim men who traveled to distant lands to prevent them from committing adultery and even homosexuality. Let alone bestiality as well."-So that's the faith and love for God Muslims had? they were in war because of Allah yet they had to have sex otherwise they would start commiting sins like Homosexuality? BTW having sex with a "muta" woman being married with another woman is adultery, it doesn't matter how you try to put it. It's amazing how strong was the best Muslim generation faith (according to Muhammad).

The old testament is record of man's arrogrance and sinful nature & the consequences of such behaviour, but muhammad who was made use of, justified & with satan's cunningness approved such behaviour.muslims know that morally (& spritually) their muhammad is "bankrupt", so they look into the Bible and twist & pervert the events that records man's sinful nature by saying "look its also there in the old testament".

HEY, muslims, try looking into the New Testament and find out how many of the morally distructive lifestyle that muhammad lived & justified can be found there? eg. multiply sexual partners, murders, wars, rape, etc...

Osama should also apologize for his shameful attacks on Chritianianty. When asked to present evidence of deaths by Christians he accused Christians of promoting Drunk Driving(?), Gangs, World Wars, Unjust wars (repitition?) and rape, even thoguh Christianity forbids all these things, and more pathetically he doesn't actually present any examples of cases of these happening. Frankly, I think it's time Osama be ignored. All he does is spew hatred. In fact, it's probably be time he be banned for his hate and refusal to honestly answer questions like a grown up.

"HEY, muslims, try looking into the New Testament and find out how many of the morally distructive lifestyle that muhammad lived & justified can be found there? eg. multiply sexual partners, murders, wars, rape, etc..."

RESPONSE:

Actually Tom, Christ almost wanted to pickup the sword and fight. He commanded his followers to sell their possessions and purchase weapons (guns and ammos). He then later on changed his mind because the TIME HASN'T COME YET.

When Christ returns, the entire planet will be put to the sword. So, your points are refuted sir.

Osama said"First of all, it was never about the money. The Prophet said that a couple can wed even with a dowry as low as few date fruits."> So this poor women were so poor and needy that even with such a low price they would become prostitutes, or maybe the low price was because these women wanted to have sex with them and Allah can't allow a Muslim miss such an oportunity to have sex with a woman so he allowed this fornication-adultery under some kind of dowry, either way it's still so rotten that it's amazing you can't see it. But what can we wxpect form a god who says you can rape and commit adultery with "those wich your right hand posses".May God open the eyes of Muslims in the world to this evil teachings.

@Osama said"Actually Tom, Christ almost wanted to pickup the sword and fight. He commanded his followers to sell their possessions and purchase weapons (guns and ammos). He then later on changed his mind because the TIME HASN'T COME YET."

Is this really a Muslim apologist? Did you even read the entire chapters? Because this is what Jesus said: Luke 22: 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the TRANSGRESSORS: for the things concerning me have an end.38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

>So Osama you are telling us that Jesus was planning a fight with 2 swords, but you again show us all how ignorant of the scriptures you are, because he was actually fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the TRANSGRESSORS; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

>So he sent them to buy those swords so he could be numbered with the transgressors and it is supported by what Jesus said later: John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Luke 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

>So he was not planning at all a revolution, he actually says that if he wanted he could get twelve legions of Angels yet he doesn’t ask it because he must fulfill what he came to do, his sacrifice, but I would like to ask, where did you get the idea of “TIME HASN'T COME YET” because I see very clearly that he wasn’t planning a fight at that moment at all, he even heals the injured guy. My God is not incompetent, if he would’ve have come to this world to conquer it he wouldn’t have fail as some "prophet" did, my God is not Allah who commands Muhammad to conquer the world in his name and gets killed by poison from a Jewess without even conquering anything else but S.Arabia. Also notice what Jesus says in Matthew 26:52 “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Just like Muhammad and the Caliphs, and that’s what happens when you go to wars in the name of God without having God backing you up. BTW notice again how Muslims think a “refutation” is, it’s just simply saying a bunch of lies and nonsense without any Biblical support, actually the Bible contradicts their statements, that’s why it’s funny to read from Osama “So, your points are refuted sir.”

@OSama"Actually Tom, Christ almost wanted to pickup the sword and fight. He commanded his followers to sell their possessions and purchase weapons (guns and ammos). He then later on changed his mind because the TIME HASN'T COME YET."

care to provide evidence? still all flash but no substances as normal.

"Osama said"First of all, it was never about the money. The Prophet said that a couple can wed even with a dowry as low as few date fruits."> So this poor women were so poor and needy that even with such a low price they would become prostitutes, or maybe the low price was because these women wanted to have sex with them and Allah can't allow a Muslim miss such an oportunity to have sex with a woman so he allowed this fornication-adultery under some kind of dowry, either way it's still so rotten that it's amazing you can't see it. But what can we wxpect form a god who says you can rape and commit adultery with "those wich your right hand posses".May God open the eyes of Muslims in the world to this evil teachings."

RESPONSE:

It's not called prostitution. It's call polygamy. Divorce in Islam is a big deal. It is the most detested lawful thing to Allah Almighty among the lawful things that were allowed for us. But under certain situation, divorce was loosened up a little.

But in Islam, divorce if done carelessly will bring sin upon the person. So even according to the Holy Quran, Muta is forbidden unless it's for an extreme case.

*************************MORE SIMPLIFICATION FOR YOU:****************************Your people mock the Islamic polygamy left and right, while your societies are the biggest whores out there. How many of even your top politicians and religious leaders were caught and exposes?

Islam provides social solutions. Muta was a social solution. Polygamy is a social solution. Please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/muta.htm to fully understand what I am talking about.

"@ Osama Moral law does not change no matter what the occasion is and muta is moral law not civil law"

RESPONSE:

No my dear. Moral Laws did also change in the Bible. I already gave one example of where Abraham and Sarah were a brother and sister. Then siblings were forbidden from getting married.

Another Moral Law is divorce. In the OT, it was allowed. The NT prohibits it unless it is for cheating.

Another example is the overwhelming sexual lewdness that exists in the Christian societies. Many many Christians practice open lewdness and see no problem with it because "they have a personal relationship with Christ." This is why you see singers singing about sex and drugs and still wear crosses. We even have PORN STARS (yes, I used to watch porn when I was single) wearing crosses, and I once actually posted a pic on my website and upsetted so many Muslims that I had to remove it. LOL. I of course covered the ganitals, but the rest of the bodies were exposed and the porn act was clear and obvious, which is why it offended so many people. The cross was clear on that *banger's* neck.

I am not saying Muslims don't sin. But you will not find a single Muslim who dares to justify his actions in Islam. Christians on the other hand "BOAST IN THEIR WEAKNESSES", which means they commit open sins without shame.

"@OSama"Actually Tom, Christ almost wanted to pickup the sword and fight. He commanded his followers to sell their possessions and purchase weapons (guns and ammos). He then later on changed his mind because the TIME HASN'T COME YET."

care to provide evidence? still all flash but no substances as normal."

RESPONSE:

I might make mistakes, but I don't BS my dear. This is why I even clashed very very seriously with Muslims in the past, and Sam Shamoun can confirm this very well for you. I don't BS and I don't take BS and I don't tolerate BS. So, I am not just flash with no substance :).

"@ Osama Moral law does not change no matter what the occasion is and muta is moral law not civil law"

RESPONSE:

Another clear example of Moral Laws changing in the Bible:

1- The Book of Numbers verses (Numbers 31:7,17-18) about allowing for Moses' followers to slaughter all of the men and women except for the virgins. Fernando once fiercely argued that this command was Moses' and not Yahweh's. In other words, it was a Hadith and a command from the Prophet, and not from GOD Almighty. SAM SHAMOUN DISAGREES WITH THIS. Be as it may (as Shamoun says), I'd like to see this point settled here. And in either case, it is a change in the following Moral Law:

2 Kings 6:21-2321 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked Elisha, "Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?" 22 "Do not kill them," he answered. "Would you kill men you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master." 23 So he prepared a great feast for them, and after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel's territory.

There is clearly a change in Moral Law here.

2- David and Bethsheba. David committed murder (by conspiring against her husband and sending him to the front lines to die), David covetted his neighbor's wife, and David committed adultery with her. David was never put to death by GOD Almighty. Instead, he was forgiven. Yet, a poor Jew during Moses' time who collected woods on Saturday to light a fire was PUT TO DEATH:

"32Once, while the Israelites were traveling through the desert, a man was caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath. 33He was taken to Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the community. 34But no one knew what to do with him, so he was not allowed to leave. 35Then the LORD said to Moses, " Tell the people to take that man outside the camp and stone him to death!" 36So he was killed, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." (CEV Bible, Numbers 15:32-36)

And continuing on the point of the poor Jew who collected wood on Saturday and lit fire and was put to death for it, Jesus' response to the Pharises about them MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW ABOUT SATURDAY AND THAT YOU CAN DO GOOD ON SATURDAY shows his ignorance about this story, because the Jew's only crime was to light a fire on Saturday because it was cold. I mean, who could live without fire and water back then???

"I am not saying Muslims don't sin. But you will not find a single Muslim who dares to justify his actions in Islam. Christians on the other hand "BOAST IN THEIR WEAKNESSES", which means they commit open sins without shame."

Once again, you openly misrepresent Christianity. Why would an honest person do that?

No they do not. The "weakness" is likely a physical weakness. To say the "weakness" in 1 Cor 12 is sin contradicts the other writings of Paul such as Romans 6:1, his rebukes of sin in 1 Cor 5:1, and his command to excommunicate in 1 Cor 5:5. You chide people for taking the quran out of context, but you can't be bothered to read the context of the bible verses! Hypocrite1

You still REFUSE to apologize for your distortions/mistake about 1 Cor 5:5, or your accusing of Christianize teaching what it clearly condemns, or even acknowledge the posts that call you on your dishonest distortions! You claim to make "mistakes", but it's clear you don't actknowledge mistakes, and contenue to pretend to be an honest scholar, all while calling other people dishonest! Hypocrite!

Osama Said: "Islam provides social solutions. Muta was a social solution. Polygamy is a social solution."

LOOOL. You can't be funnier can you? Even a Gulf Arab Muslim will laugh to death on the non-sense you said. Muta and Polygamy are social what? "solutions"? Let me see something .. how about this as a "social solution in action" for you:

Sordid trade in the 'summer brides': Arab tourists are 'buying underage Egyptian sex slaves' to serve them for just a few months'Read more: http://bit.ly/NHfYW2

Now you definitely know that 99% of those sex maniac, sex-slave-purchasing Arabs are Oily Gulf Arabs who are "fully polygamists" by default. How, for Allah's sake, their lusts have not been cured by your God's second social solution "Polygamy" that they still seek to practice your God's first social solution "Muta" with under-aged Egyptian girls? Did you read what happened to that poor 17 years old slave who was sold for £2,120? Tell me how was Muta an effective "social solution" for her? ;)You are totally pathetic.

"Actually Tom, Christ ALMOST wanted to pickup the sword and fight. He commanded his followers to sell their possessions and purchase weapons (guns and ammos). He then later on changed his mind because the TIME HASN'T COME YET."

Hey Osama,I ALMOST became a muslim, after reading your ALMOST "intelligent & ALMOST throughly researched" argument & I ALMOST took you seriously,& I ALMOST died... from laugther!

Hey, you could continue in the same vein by saying, Christ ALMOST had multiple sexual partners & Christ ALMOST raped & Christ ALMOST lusted over another man's wife etc... as such you could ALMOST say Christ was like muhammad!

Your are certainly puerile in your mind & arguments.

As I said, you muslims are trying everything to make Christianity fit into your morally & spritually BANKRUPT system-islam, with your wild distortions and perversions!

My fellow christians have addressed your puerile arguments but alas you are a rebellious child, who will at some point see the light of your more experienced wisdom filled Elder Christian family.

@ Osama2- David and Bethsheba. David committed murder (by conspiring against her husband and sending him to the front lines to die), David covetted his neighbor's wife, and David committed adultery with her. David was never put to death by GOD Almighty. Instead, he was forgiven. Yet, a poor Jew during Moses' time who collected woods on Saturday to light a fire was PUT TO DEATH:

"32Once, while the Israelites were traveling through the desert, a man was caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath. 33He was taken to Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the community. 34But no one knew what to do with him, so he was not allowed to leave. 35Then the LORD said to Moses, " Tell the people to take that man outside the camp and stone him to death!" 36So he was killed, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." (CEV Bible, Numbers 15:32-36)

If you want your case to stand you need to know what moral law is

The moral law that declares how man should live.

The civil law that was the legal structures for the ancient nation of Israel.

So in this case The bible has always condemned adultery and how is it related to something to do with the Sabbath?

If one was to say morality law changes did occur, Osama you will have to say God gave express permission for them to perform adultery. This would be the same thing for Sabbath.

""Jesus' response to the Pharises about them MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW ABOUT SATURDAY AND THAT YOU CAN DO GOOD ON SATURDAY shows his ignorance about this story"

Exodus 20:8-11Hey Osama is doing good counted as keeping it holy? Labour and work the said versus were. so I am not doing any labor or work because I am not getting paid for it :P"

RESPONSE:

Jesus used David and the Priests (Luke 6:1-11, Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 12:4-6) as an excuse to why his Disciples worked on the Saturday. They essentially did almost exactly what the Jew who was put to death in Numbers 15:32-36:

"32Once, while the Israelites were traveling through the desert, a man was caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath. 33He was taken to Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the community. 34But no one knew what to do with him, so he was not allowed to leave. 35Then the LORD said to Moses, " Tell the people to take that man outside the camp and stone him to death!" 36So he was killed, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." (CEV Bible, Numbers 15:32-36)

Here is the problem with Jesus' argument:

1- He critisized them of not knowing their scriptures.

2- He used an adulterer, murderer and coveter as an example of authority for breaking the Sabbath (Saturday) by doing work in it.

3- He used the Priests(????) of old who also did work on the Sabbath as an authority??? Did not Jesus spit on their faces by calling them hypocrites and fools, and ignorants of their own scriptures?? Now he's using their fathers as a Divine Authority?

4- Yet, in the verses that I gave above, YAHWEH ALMIGHTY HIMSELF ORDERED FOR A JEW TO BE PUT TO DEATH FOR LIGHTING FIRE ON SATURDAY. This fire was either for cooking, heat or fending off predators. Do you know how hard it was back them to start a fire? They didn't have lighters and matches and electrical and gas stoves like we have today.

Did you also know that Jesus use of the Priests as an authority for breaking the Sabbath now makes the JEws' Talmud a ruling authority? Christians often reject the Talmud as a TAFSIR (interpretation) AND/OR RULING AUTHORITY BESIDES THE BIBLE. Yet, Jesus' use of them elates their status and their writings.

Your entire argument just simply falls apart, Aaron. Jesus was clearly ignorant about Numbers 15:32-36. Plain and simple. Therefore, like the many many many examples that we have on him, he could not be GOD Almighty. He is no more than a creation of GOD Almighty and a Prophet of GOD Almighty. No more and no less.

Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/lord_of_sabbath_lie.htm for ample more proofs and details.

@Osama"LOL this is getting hilarious1- The Book of Numbers verses (Numbers 31:7,17-18) about allowing for Moses' followers to slaughter all of the men and women except for the virgins. Fernando once fiercely argued that this command was Moses' and not Yahweh's. In other words, it was a Hadith and a command from the Prophet, and not from GOD Almighty. SAM SHAMOUN DISAGREES WITH THIS. Be as it may (as Shamoun says), I'd like to see this point settled here. And in either case, it is a change in the following Moral Law:

2 Kings 6:21-2321 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked Elisha, "Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?" 22 "Do not kill them," he answered. "Would you kill men you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master." 23 So he prepared a great feast for them, and after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel's territory."

The one in Numbers clearly states the enemy can fight back and had the capability

In King the enemy was blinded and could not attack and thus no longer a threat. Osama read the entire chapter first you did another 1corintheans 5:5 again not even reading the title or the beginning again.

"Hey Osama,I ALMOST became a muslim, after reading your ALMOST "intelligent & ALMOST throughly researched" argument & I ALMOST took you seriously,& I ALMOST died... from laugther!"

RESPONSE:

Christ didn't use the sword yet, but he will according to your religion and also according to mine. You simply missed THE ENTIRE POINT! Jesus because JEsus didn't use the sword yet, it doesn't mean that the argument can't be used to refute you. And like I've proven, he did command his followers to buy swords. HE then changed his mind. But the point is still very valid, and it will happen anyway in the future. You might live to see it.

What does your god do while women get raped? Does he sit back at smile?

Seriously you need to get out the cult of islam ASAP it's pretty stupid."

RESPONSE:

You are very silly! The same question can be asked about the GOD of the Bible as well, who is also the GOD of Islam.

So what does your GOD do when women get raped? Well, actually in your scriptures, the raped girl is commanded to marry her rapist:

Deuteronomy 22:28-30 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Did you even bother to read the post you are commenting on? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have made the bare assertion that the Bible requires the rapist to marry his victim.

As well, even if the verse were talking about rape in the sense of forced sex the fact is that Islam does not teach that someone who rapes an unmarried/unbetrothed girl is to be executed. The rapist is only to be executed if the person is married (in which case he is punished as an adulterer)

@Osama You said: "It's not called prostitution. It's call polygamy. Divorce in Islam is a big deal."Temporary polygamy knowing you will devorce her in 2 days after you satisfy your lust towards another woman is not polygamy, it's called prostitution, because you know you won't even get a life with that woman(house, kids, work and live together,etc), it's only about sex, the desires of the flesh being satisfy paying another woman to "marry" you for 2 days so you can do it.

Did you even bother to read the post you are commenting on? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have made the bare assertion that the Bible requires the rapist to marry his victim.

As well, even if the verse were talking about rape in the sense of forced sex the fact is that Islam does not teach that someone who rapes an unmarried/unbetrothed girl is to be executed. The rapist is only to be executed if the person is married (in which case he is punished as an adulterer)

"The punishment for rape in Islam is same as the punishment for zina, which is stoning IF the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is NOT married." (What Is the Ruling On the Crime of Rape In Islam?)"

RESPONSE:

Deuteronomy 22:28-30

New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,(A) 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.30 A man is not to marry his father’s wife; he must not dishonor his father’s bed.[b](B)

As to the punishment of rape in Islam, whether it's the death penalty or 100 painful flogs in front of the public, it's still a sever punishment. And rapes varry. If the rape is brutal, then the punishment is death. It once happened in Jordan by two army recruits to a 16 year-old girl, and both were hung.

Moses told them not to light a fire on the Sabbath and warned them of the consequences. so it his fault that he did not obey

exodus 35:1-3

speaking of civil and moral laws the punishment was a civil law

also Jesus disciples were allowed to do what they were doing

Deuteronomy 23:24

this can be done any time, so a pharisees were the ones who did not know their books and added a boat load of ridiculous rules and extras. Because Deuteronomy 23:24 was a act of kindness from the owner of the land. picking up grain and eating it does not count as working while you pass by. so according to you I can;t pick up a piece of bread and eat it on the Sabbath. so everyone can not eat on the Sabbath according to Osama.

@foolster41Osama has done the 1 corintheans 5:5 with 2 Kings 6:21-23, Numbers 31:7,17-18. He can;t even tell the difference between moral difference between sparing those who can;t fight and killing those who can.

I must be talking to empty space here, because you don't seem to understand much of what I say, my brother. So I'll try to simplify it for you once again:

1- Jesus tried to rationalize the breaking of the Sabbath by bringing ridiculous examples. He used David and the Priests. David who was an adulterer, murderer and a coveter is now one that Jesus can use as a Law? And the Priests whom Jesus despised? Jesus now made the Priests' Talmud Holy and Divine by using them as the authority or excuse for breaking the Sabbath.

2- *****JESUS SAID THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE THAT YOU COULD DO GOOD ON THE SABBATH. Yet, in the Exodus 35:1-3 verses that you gave, he is clearly and indesputably refuted! Jesus gave the example that what if your sheep falls in the well on Saturday. Will you not go now to pick it up? Yet, in your verses and in the ones that I gave above, YOU COULDN'T EVEN COOK FOR YOUR CHILDREN TO EAT, OR LIGHT A FIRE IF YOURS GOES OUT (it does get windy on the Sabbath also). AND IF YOU DO, THEN YOU WILL LOSE YOUR LIFE.

Jesus' statement and examples of David, the Priests, and the sheep falling in the well and rescuing it on the Sabbath are clear proofs that he was completely ignorant about the verses that we both mentioned. Otherwise, he wouldn't say the statement: "IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OK FOR YOU TO DO GOOD ON THE SABBATH, FOR MAN IS THE LORD OF THE SABBATH, NOT THE SABBATH THE LORD OF MAN."

@Osamaluke 22:35-38 Jesus did not have any use for those swords as he has said himself

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" - Matthew 26:52-54"

Why use swords when you got a army of angels to do it for you? and two swords vs a whole crowd? the event of being was already foreshadowed in the bible. which means the purpose of the swords are not for fighting.

@Osama just to also add something else you said Jesus ate the bread of the priest right? that ceremonial law not moral. If you can;t identify these then you definitely can;t lecture the rest of us on morality Because you can;t work out whats what when its put right in front of you

Please someone tell Osama to read the posts he is commenting before he starts to do it, so he won't make such mistakes like giving this response to brother Anthony: "Deuteronomy 22:28-30

New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,(A) 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.30 A man is not to marry his father’s wife; he must not dishonor his father’s bed.[b](B)

Are you serious....LOL!!!?i ask again, is this guy really a muslim apologist? he can't even read an article before commenting haha, Osama are you afraid of losing your faith that you can't even read the posts?

I notice you're still being very selective in your replies. You won't reply (either an explanation or apology) about your completely false assertion of 1 Chron 1:12 to mean Christians can openly sin, just as you won't explain or apologize for 1 Chron 5:5 either, or in your other topic your silly attacks on Christianity that have no factual basis!

If you were simply making mistakes, then you'd apologize for mistakes. But you find even admiring mistakes too difficult! (Because, after all, Islam teaches that Muslims are superior, so it is shameful to apologize to a dirty Kuffir!)

so it speaks of a man taking a virgin girl and he lies/sleeps with her. First of all the word RAPE is definitely not found in this passage. Actually it could be difficult to find the word "rape" anywhere in the bible. Its always some kind of other word describing the act of rape, so its very important to read the context!!

Another word that speaks against rape is the last one:וְנִמְצָאוּ "be found" verb, niphal, waw-consecutive + perfect, 3rd person, common, plural(niphal pointing to a passive act)

So its "they" are found .. its not that he is found doing some act of crime.But back to the original topic. The word rape (hard to find in the bible anyway) is not mentioned in the verses before either (dtn 22,13-27) Most of the times in this pericope the context is more about consensual sex, than that of rape. Like the girl not screaming inside the town - a man lying with another mans wife. Most part of this text is about slander/defamation/smear (i dont know which word would fit the german "verleumdung" best..) the Text is only in a very small part about rape - even the part about the girl "screaming" implies, that it was consensual if she didnt scream inside the town!

My understanding of this text is more about dealing with people having affairs, defamation of others and stuff like that. Rape is only implied in a small part of the text - and in this case again more from the point of view that those people are cheating on somebody else. This kind of "cheating" also goes with 22,28-29. It would be some kind of cheating to sleep with a virgin girl and then not take her as a wife. It would be cheating to the father and the girl that was seduced.

For me the most important part is 22,27! It says, the man must be killed, because no one could have heard the girl scream and in this case its about rape. A man having non-consensual sex with a girl. And he is to be killed.

Btw. the case where the man is to be killed, he "וְהֶחֶזִיק-בָּהּ", so literaly "he forces/is strong with/on her". I think this points more to a rape than the words used in 22,28-29.

I normally do not comment on these kinds of posts, because I am not an expert on Islam. However, I am currently near the end of my Master's degree in Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. While I must confess that I know very little about Arabic, by main language is Biblical Hebrew, and, while I was taking courses at TEDS, I developed a keen interest in Hebrew law, especially after I had to translate all of the case laws from the code of Hammurabi in Akkadian class. Hebrew law is a fascinating study.

That is why I am commenting on this post, because I am concerned that there are some oversimplifications going on here that really distort the message of the text. First of all, although the scholarship behind the initial post goes back to a respectable Hebraist [Meredeth Kline], most Hebraists I know would reject the reasoning. For example, while it is true that the Hebrew term תפש does not necessarily involve violence, the problem is that we are in the context of laws distinguishing forced sexuality from adultery. Examples of adultery have already been given [vrs. 21-24], and we have already seen one example of violence [vrs. 25-27]. On the interpretation above, it would leave out what happens in the case of an unbetrothed or unmarried woman who is raped. This is an odd omission, as it is highly unlikely that such a thing never happened in the Ancient Near East.

My own opinion is that the law is ambiguous for a purpose. The main problem in all of these interpretations is that they are trying to act as though the *significance* of these laws to our modern day is the same as the *meaning* of these laws. Such a confusion is a horrid mistake in understanding how the Hebrew law is to be applied to the Christian.

For example, in this very section, Deuteronomy 22:8 commands people to have a railing around the roof of their house. The meaning is very clear, and that is that people are to build railings around their roof. However, that does not mean that we get up and start building railings around the roof in order to be consistent with God's law. God's law was given at a particular time for a particular purpose. Historical background is often helpful in coming to this purpose, and, in this case, the background to this law is that people at one time had flat roofs, and the roof would be used as an extra room in the house, especially during the summer months in the evenings when the weather was extremely hot. At such times, people would go on the roof, and cool off at the end of the day. The railing was to protect people from getting to close to the edge, and accidentally falling off. In such a case, it was the fault of the owner of the house, who did not put a railing around his roof. Hence, the intent of the law is for the Israelites to protect innocent human life from dangerous falls. Because of recognizing this intention, we can even understand how it is that those who applied the law could determine how big the fence needed to be. It would need to be sufficiently high to protect against dangerous falls from the roof.

However, it also would tell us how we are to apply the law today. We don't have flat roofs, and we don't view the roof as an extra room of the house, so building a railing around the roof of our houses would be very senseless. However, the law would apply, for example, to baseball teams who do not have sufficiently high railings to protect fans from falling out of the upper deck. An issue came up a few years ago with the Texas Rangers, and their baseball stadium when a man fell out of the stands, and ended up dying from the fall.

Now, returning to the law concerning the rape/seduction of an unmarried, unbetrothed woman, there are a few cultural backgrounds that must be understood if we are to understand what the intent of this law really is:

-Rape in Ancient Near Eastern cultures brought shame upon the rapist.

In other words, unlike today's society where there is no shame for any evil committed, people in the ANE had shame for such horrible acts as rape. Amnon is a perfect example. After he raped his half sister Tamar, he felt as much hate for her as he did "love" [2 Samuel 13:15]. The reason is that, in such a society, because of the disgrace he brought upon her, he would have incredible shame heaped upon him. Hence, rapists, unlike our modern culture, actually felt shame for what they did.

-Rape, in Ancient Near Eastern cultures, destroyed the marriage prospects of a single woman.

In the Ancient Near East, virginity was highly valued in women. It was valued to the point where a woman who was not a virgin could expect to get married only by some great miracle. When a rapist raped a woman, he took away that virginity, thus usually condemning the woman to a life of singleness. This was dangerous because, in agrarian societies such as the Ancient Near East, after a woman's father died, she would be all alone to manage the farming estate for herself. The book of Ruth is a perfect example of the problems created by this kind of a situation [only, in that case, it was due to the death of Ruth's first husband]. Still, Ruth was relegated to gleaning in the fields, because she had no help to be able to work the fields in her home. Thus, when someone raped a woman, it took away her security and well-being for the future.

-Rape, in the Ancient Near East, was stealing from the father.

Because of the problem of security after a woman was married, the husband was obliged to pay a dowry for the woman he was about to marry. Usually this was some portion of his estate, or something that would give the father and the daughter security should the husband die young. However, if a woman was raped, because such an action destroyed her marriageability, it would also destroy the father's ability to get a dowry.

Thus, seen in this light, the provision of this law is very clearly wise. First of all, if a man is convicted of rape, the marrying of the woman he raped heaps shame upon him. He would dare not mistreat her, as that would bring even more shame upon him. Marrying this woman would be an act of disgrace upon him and his household.

More than that, it would force him to take responsibility for his actions. The man now had to take care of this woman after her father died. Not only that, but the dowry price that is given to the father [50 shekels] is far higher than a normal dowry, suggesting that the dowry also included damages done to the father's household.

I would also point out, as a side note, that, in this culture, all marriages had to be approved by the father. Hence, a father could nullify a marriage at any point in time. If the father did not want the man to marry his daughter then, obviously, the marriage would not take place. Still, given the culture in which they lived, this was an easy way out should such an incident occur.

The ambiguity comes in because of the fact that the seducing of a virgin would have the same effect as the rape of a virgin. It would likewise destroy the marriageability of the woman, steal from the father, and yes, even bring shame upon the person who committed premarital sexual relations. Hence, the reason for the ambiguity, I believe, is because the law is to be applied in either the instance of rape or fornication.

Now, turning the corner, we have to ask what the laws significance is for our culture today. It would be dangerous for a woman to marry her rapist today, as people do not feel shame today for their actions. He would, in all likelihood, rape her again. More than that, we don't view virginity so highly when it comes to marriageability, nor do we have any dowry which must be payed in order to protect the father should the husband die early. I think the answer is that that we should seek to supply all of the social, economic, and spiritual needs of someone who has been the victim of rape. I also would say that the law certainly means that the rapist should take responsibility for that damage. Because the main damage done in rape is emotional in today's society, the punishment, given the laws about the betrothal of a raped woman, should be death-death not for the woman [Deuteronomy 22:26], but for the rapist [Deuteronomy 22:25].

The main point I want to get across is that Hebrew law was giving in a particular context for a particular purpose. You can't simply dismiss the law by applying it directly word for word into today's society. You have to understand what the law is intending to accomplish in the society in which it is written, before you apply it to the modern society.

"@Osama just to also add something else you said Jesus ate the bread of the priest right? that ceremonial law not moral. If you can;t identify these then you definitely can;t lecture the rest of us on morality Because you can;t work out whats what when its put right in front of you"

RESPONSE:

I never said that, Aaron. I don't know from where you got this from. My points are very clear above.

Moses told them not to light a fire on the Sabbath and warned them of the consequences. so it his fault that he did not obey

exodus 35:1-3"

RESPONSE:

It wasn't a command from Moses. It was a direct Command from Yahweh Almighty, and it was for all times and all places. So if anything, this refutes your argument and supports mine. Read my new post above.

@Puritan Calvinist (Adam), thank you for the thorough explanation. That really makes sense and it makes much more sense than all the mental gymnastics and desperate distinctions that the apologists are trying to make.

The question of rape isn't the only troubling thing in these verses, as it brings up many troubling issues. I think your explanation, which I have no reason to doubt, is significant evidence that there are parts of the bible that are not timeless universal truth, but are products of the time and culture in which they were written.

Oh, and the Harper Collins Study Bible notes basically say the same thing you are saying. The notes say, "biblical law does not sharply distinguish between rape and seduction of an unbetrothed woman" and the reasons you listed are probably why. So, back then, if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't, maybe an unbetrothed woman would want to marry her rapist, because the rapist would be punished.

So much for the Bible being the source of absolute and unchanging morality!

Ha ha ha Osama is caught with pants down! After this I am not sure if Osama is bright enough to understand why. Hopefully, the following will help.

Osama writes: "RESPONSE:

Deuteronomy 22:28-30

New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered..."

Of course Osama hasn't realized that the two page post of Anthony to which he is commenting is about the same verse!

Not only that, Anthony even reminds Osama: "Osama, Did you even bother to read the post you are commenting on? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have made the bare assertion that the Bible requires the rapist to marry his victim."

So Osama not only didn't read the article but also didn't read Anthony's comment as well! How embarrassing! Osama is a total joke!!!

Hey guys, over the last year or so I have seen some outrageous, violent, hateful, sexist and often rather stupid comments of Osama on this blog (not to mention what he puts on his own website). Since Osama is a self-proclaimed leading Muslim apologist and owner of answering-christianity this is a treasure trove for everyone else who know him better! Someone seriously needs to take screen shots of all what he said here and make a video exposing him. I hope Muslims will refrain from inviting him to debate for Islam.

Thanks for the comments. A number of your observations are identical to those I already made in my original article and in the present reply. As for the controverted points, I think I will stick with Kline and Bahnsen. Perhaps my reasons will be forthcoming if my Muslim opponent decides to draft another response.

That's fine. I think that it does touch on rape, for the reasons given above, and because of the silence it would create in light of the great damage that would be done to a single woman by rape. Still, it is not necessarily a hill I am willing to die on. My main concern is with the intent of speech acts, and how they must be analyzed in the culture in which they are written. For example, in my recent study of pragmatics, in the chapter on speech acts, I came across this particular quote in the textbook I was using [I figure it will interest those here, since it specifically references Islamic cultures]:

In some Muslim cultures, under the appropriate circumstances, the uttering of a sentence with the import of (4.53) three times consecutively by a husband to his wife will ipso facto constitute a divorce. By contrast, in Western cultures, no one (no matter what his or her religion is) can felicitously use (4.53) to obtain a divorce.

Huang's point is very clear, and that is that individual speech acts must be analyzed in the context of the culture from which they came. If someone in America today said, "I hereby divorce you" three times, we would all wonder what in the world the person is seeking to accomplish by saying such a thing three times. However, given Islamic cultures, we understand exactly what is going on.

The point is that even the speech acts of Hebrew law must be analyzed in the cultural context in which they are found, and we cannot accuse Hebrew law of not making any sense in our culture, because it was not written to our culture. Yes, it makes no sense to command a rapist to marry the woman he rapes in our culture, given the lack of shame that men who do such things today have, and the lack of economic damage to the father and the woman raped. However, if we put ourselves back in the culture of the ANE, we understand exactly what the speech act is intending to accomplish, and we can use that intention to apply the law in our modern day.

While at Trinity, I ran into someone who became a friend of mine who studied under D.A. Carson. She relayed a comment that Carson made that evangelicals tend to confuse the notion that the Bible was written *for* them with the notion that the Bible was written *to* them. Yes, the Bible was written for our benefit, but it does not say, "Dear Adam" or "Dear Anthony." It was not written *to* us.

The problem is, I have seen Muslims doing the same thing on this thread. If you want to mangle Hebrew law, then don't read it in the light of its cultural context. However, we can also mangle (4.53) in the same way. I simply desire to see the Hebrew Bible treated with the same fairness that I am sure any Muslim would want the Qur'an treated. That's all.

"Christ didn't use the sword yet, but he will according to your religion and also according to mine. You simply missed THE ENTIRE POINT! Jesus because JEsus didn't use the sword yet, it doesn't mean that the argument can't be used to refute you. And like I've proven, he did command his followers to buy swords. HE then changed his mind. But the point is still very valid, and it will happen anyway in the future. You might live to see it".----------------------------------Unlike muhammad, Christ does not change His mind!

First of all, I agree with one of the posters here, that you dont read the content of the post as posted by christains as you are embrassed/afraid about what you will find out about your morally & spiritually BANKRUPT decadent system!

Christ to me came for 2 purpose:1) How to lead a morally & spiritual life (He Did this by real live example)2) To be the guarantee for my Salvation.

As such, your perverted attempt to twist the perfect life of Our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ, through your pathetic attempt to put Jesus Christ in the same mould of your morally & spirtually inept/empty ( to put it mildly) muhammad, has truely all the "hoof prints" of satan!

What entity wants to take away man's salvation? Your koran clearly states that the previous scriptures are of the God of Abraham.Its impossible for the creator of all things to screw up & say oppps, I need to use "Plan B". Get a life!

And when The Lord Jesus Christ come again, sorry mate... I wont be around as a believer of the Gospel, As promised by the God of Abraham, I will be with the Father in Paradise, saved :)

The 'sword' is for the evil one...when the time comes... unlike your muhammad who used it to kill the followers of the God Abraham & those who opposed him & set the pace for his followers.

Already, my fellow christains have addressed the issue of the matter of the verse, which obviuosly you choose to ignore like everything else.

@ Osama"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."matthew 5:17 supports what I pointed out earlier. Jesus was doing what was allowed by the law as pointed out earlier (just for got to point out @Osama). Hence Jesus was doing that which was allowed.

"Since Osama is a self-proclaimed leading Muslim apologist and owner of answering-christianity this is a treasure trove for everyone else who know him better!"

RESPONSE:

I continue to hear this lie from christians. If you're not a liar, show me where I declared myself or proclaimed myself to be a leading Muslim apologist? All I am is a Truth seeker and nothing more. I've been called "self-proclaimed scholar" and other things which I never attributed to myself.

Get your facts straight and don't make up things on people. Besides, what does this have to do WITH ANYTHING WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE?! Are you that dumb and desperate?

so it speaks of a man taking a virgin girl and he lies/sleeps with her. First of all the word RAPE is definitely not found in this passage. Actually it could be difficult to find the word "rape" anywhere in the bible. Its always some kind of other word describing the act of rape, so its very important to read the context!!"

RESPONSE:

Are you really that shallow-minded? Or are you playing word-games? Your own writings above clearly and indisputably say that IF HE FORCIBLY HAS SEX WITH HER. He seizes her, or holds her and then has sex with her. Does not this say that he is having sex with her beyond her will? And what would this constitute then? (Multiple choice quize for your brain):

So much for the Bible being the source of absolute and unchanging morality!

Wow, that is grossly simplistic. This only works if you reduce language simply down to what is said. However, that completely ignores an entire field of linguistics, namely, pragmatics. The answer to your question is that we have to understand language as more complex that just simple text on a page. One of the ways this can be done is by recognizing that language is actually an *action.* J.L. Austin and John Searle were the first two linguists to really develop this idea, and it has been revolutionary in our understanding of language. They distinguished between three different elements in language: the locution, the illocution, and the perlocution. The locution is simply “the act of saying something that makes sense in a language[1].” The Illocution is “the action intended by the speaker[1].” The perlocution is “what follows an utterance: the effect or ‘take up’ of an illocutionary act[1].”

With these distinctions made, we can now focus on the illocution. The illocution assumes that, when a person makes a speech act, he is intending to do something by it. When we look for absolute and unchanging morality in scripture, we look at what the author is intending *to do* by his speech acts as a whole as well as what the words actually say. We see the logic of his intentions throughout the passage.

This distinction can be easily illustrated by the following statement:

1. You are a dirty pig.

We obviously cannot get the meaning of this sentence by defining "you" [2s pronoun] "are" [verb 'to be'], a [indefinite article], dirty [unclean, full of filth], pig [an animal that goes 'oink, oink' with a curly tail, and pink fur]. Such would be absurd, as it would ignore that the text is intending to insult.

It gets more complicated when we start throwing culture in. As Anthony and I were just discussing, the illocutionary force of a speech act can vary by culture. For example, take this sentence:

2. When someone offers you a gift, deny the gift two times before accepting it.

Now, one might ask, how can such a comment state a universal truth? It may sound like what we are doing is simply being annoying when we obey this command. The problem is, as Yan Huang points out in the very same textbook [ibid, p.123], in Zhu, Li, and Qian cultures, a person usually refuses a gift two times before accepting it. By doing this, he shows his gratitude to the giver for giving him the gift.

Hence, the illocutionary force of 2. is:

2'. Show gratitude for the gifts you receive.

which is universal, unchanging morality. We should be people of thanksgiving, as the scriptures themselves say.

Hence, we can say that the Bible does express absolute and unchanging morality at the *illocutionary* as well as the locutionary level. If you allow language to have illocutionary force [as all language does], then the Bible still expresses absolute and unchanging morality in its illocutionary force. If you deny this, then you utterly destroy human language.

As I said in my post, if we apply this to the passage about rape, then the intention is that we should seek to supply all of the social, economic, and spiritual needs of someone who has been the victim of rape. I also would say that the law certainly means that the rapist should take responsibility for that damage. Because the main damage done in rape is emotional in today's society, the punishment, given the laws about the betrothal of a raped woman, should be death-death not for the woman [Deuteronomy 22:26], but for the rapist [Deuteronomy 22:25].

@Osamaas for the example of the sheep you are reading into things that are not there. Here is a question would I be desecrating it by allowing a man to suffer? Because If I did that would be considered evil thus desecration would occur on the Sabbath thus Jesus example is justified as keeping it holy by healing the man.

@Osama: "All I am is a Truth seeker and nothing more"No you're not. Don't make me laugh! You wouldn't make baseless attacks on Christianity (accusations of rape and drunk driving, wars, etc.) and gross misrepresentaitons (1 Chron 5:5, 12), and the refuse to explain or apologize for those attacks if you were honest. You wouldn't smear people who disagree with you and then ignore demands for you to apollogize. You are a dishonest coward, nothing more.

Hi, it's good to see someone so involvved in Christian theology but i have some problems with your statements:1)The word used in Hebrew as Anthony pointed out is not "Rape" but something like "hold", i am spaniard and in my bible it's translated as "take" as when you take someone as wife is the same word, i know it's not an argument, but one of the best translation that there are of the Bible is the Spanish one, i only see this problem in the NIV. So i don't see why we should take this as "rape" when we have another verse in the same Bible speaking about the same issue which is my point number 2 of why i don't totally agree with you.

2) There is another verse of this same issue in Exodus 22:16-17 which leaves clear what is it about, even reading the same NIV we see this: Exodus22:16 “If a man SEDUCES a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.-So i see that the Bible (thank God) repeats many of it's statements so they can remind them each time (Dessert, Canaan,israel etc), and it (thx God) explains well what is this about, and it's not about rape, as the same verse says it's about he seducing her, deceiving her. i know what you meant about we can't try to put our current values on them because God reveals spicific orders considering the moment so he could protect them from the main problems at that time, and i am with you on that point, but i think that in this subject this is not the case considering as i said the word he is using in hebrew and even more the paralel verse speaking about the same thing in Exodus.

@Osama: First of all, its kind of amusing, that almost every post of you has some kind of offensive tone in it. Even if you are right, is it necessary to ask if i am "shallow minded"? About your answer as such:It does not indisputably say, that he had sex by force with her. The word "take, seize".. is used in a non aggressive way in other parts of the bible. I think it would be nicely translated to german with the word "nehmen" ... like "take" in english. It can be used even in a sexual meaning, but most of the time its just a plain word for just picking something up. If we read it in context of the rest of the tex, especially 22,25, where it says he "וְהֶחֶזִיק-בָּהּ" - so here he really uses force on her! The word in 22,28 has a much broader and less violent meaning, 22,25 is pointing out the violence. So if 22,28 would be about a violent act, it could have used the same or similar word as in 22,25. For example תפשׂ is even used in Gen4,21 in connection with "handling a flute" (or other instrument). Maybe that passage (Gen 4,22) is meant as some kind of joke - like "the are rapinng those instruments", but i think it just shows, that the word תפשׂ has a very broad range of meaning and Dtn 22,27-28 is NOT speaking indisputable of rape. Although i must admit, it could speak of rape ... but it is very far from clear about it. As i said in my previous post, one has to read it in context and as 22,25 uses a much different word and is clear about the force on the girl, i would say that 22,28 is clearly different from 22,25 and so at least has to have a broader meaning as Adam pointed out. Btw. i think Adam made a very good point with his post and i think it is very important to read the biblical laws in their cultural context. Many laws dont make any sense, if applied word by word to our culture, although the moral,theological meaning .. lets say the "meta"-meaning of the text is still perfectly appliable to our culture. But although Adam also goes with the "rape" version, and has good points for it, he still admits, that it is NOT clear about it and can also mean consensual sex.

@Adam: I agree with most of your post and i think everybody here would like to see you posting more often! Especially the point to read the "meta"-meaning of the text to understeand the real meaning and not taking it word by word is excactly what i learned in my studies here in germany. Turning the table, the israelites wouldnt have understood the meaning of any law if it would have been written in "our" language. Every culture has so many little things that can make a sentence have a complete different meaning, that it is very important to understand the culture in order to understand their texts. Back to topic: You are right that 22,28 can have an ambiguous meaning. But taking 22,25 in consideration, i would say it clearly is different from this "rape" verse. So reading 22,28 as some kind of consesual sex does have a good ground to stand on. As i pointed out in my previous post, i think the whole text is not really about rape as the main theme - its more about the kind of "honour" that is lost when people have sex with married people and so on. I dont know how to translate the german word "verleumdung" correctly, but i would think that it is the main theme of this passage. Rape does play an important role, but translating it to our society there comes a case to mind, where a popular TV weather-man had to defend himself against some rape accuses. Most of the media was talking about the moral issues and how he cheated on his wife and so on. So even today rape is not just about the violent act of sex, the moral and "honour" plays an important role still in our modern society. Although the weather-man was not found guilty, his life is kind of destroyed now. He had to quit his job and i dont think he ever will be on a big TV Show again - everybody nows his dark sex secrets ... so well ..Speaking again of 22,28 i think the important part is about the shame it would bring the girl, if she lost her virginity and then be left alone by that guy. If it is due to rape or consensual sex, is not the important part of this text. Its how to handle this problem and give the girl some kind of defence against those bad guys. Being left alone after sex will feel like rape for the girl anyway! Reading this text from my modern point of view, i somehow have all those "cool" guys in mind, playing with young girls and promising them love but leave them after having sex with them. DTn 22,28 would fit in that category perfectly today ;). And even the biblical law would be kind of appropriate for that. Those guys would think twice, if they had to marry the girl.

@MikeI think you totally got wrong this, if God revealed at that time i.e to kill the adulterous, and now we don't do that because we are in Jesus new pact, it's not about changing morality, at that time God considered sin i.e to commit adultery, and know god considers the same, it's a sin, but why did the punishment changed? the jews were in a difficult time, they were starting as a Nation, and God was protecting them in a very visual and practical way, because their faith was still too young but know we don't do that (John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.) because even when we know it is a sin now it's not to us to apply the punishment since the point is clear that God hates adultery and that's why the Bible say

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

-We know that God still hates idolatry, fornication, adultery, etc, thx to our schoolmaster (the law) we know how much and how important is to stay away from such sins, but it's no longer our duty to punish the ppl. This is not moral change from God, he just revealed what he wanted us to do and made this punishment system so the Jews having so little faith could stick to them in such difficult times, but the reason of the punishment, the "crime" is still the same to God "adultery"..

May God guide you to his path and delivers you from the hate i can see in your words. GBY

@Adam, yo're right. My statement was much too simplistic. I apologize for that. I'm not saying that the Bible does not contain timeless and universal moral truths, because it does, like probably most "holy books" .

But at the same time there are plenty of things in it that demonstrate that it's a very human book that is a product of its time and culture.

I think you do an excellent job demonstrating this by explaining the cultural context behind these troubling verses in Deuteronomy.

Terry has posted in "Wear Bed Sheets or Get Bedded Say Muslims"these links and my response is there too.http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

Osama when you pray do you pray to Lucifer or Satan? Be honest. Wait it seems that being honest is something you are incapable of comprehending or differentiaing. The father of lies and deceit has trained and brainwashed you well.

I can't say that I'm convinced by the argument that rape isn't in view in this casuistic law. Even the Septuagint (LXX) translators say it as a law in response to rape.

This is what Vern Poythress argued:

"The verb "lay hold of, seize" (תפשׂ) in verse 28 is used elsewhere in the Old Testament in a number of cases where definite use of force is in view (e.g., 1 Sam. 23:26; 1 Kings 13:4; 18:40; 20:18; 2 Kings 10:14; 14:13; Jer. 34:3). The verb in verse 25, namely, "take hold of, seize" (חזק in the hiphil plus the preposition בְ), has a quite similar range of meaning. It can be used in contexts where exertion of some force is in view (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:35; 2 Sam. 2:16; Jer. 50:33). It can also be used for taking hold of someone's hand in a gentle manner (Judges 16:26; Isa. 51:18; Jer. 31:32; cf. 2 Sam. 15:5). Like the word in verse 28, it can be used for holding a weapon (Neh. 4:16,17; Ps. 35:2; Jer. 6:23). Even in a sexual context, it can be used simply of seizing in a general way (Prov. 7:13). Even in Judges 19:25 and 2 Sam. 13:11, where the context speaks of rape, the key word is used only to describe holding the girl, probably by the wrist or arm. (The word is also used in 2 Sam. 13:14, but in another stem and with another sense in order to assert that Amnon was physically stronger than Tamar.) Hence its use even in these cases does not differ at all from the supposed meaning of תפשׂ in verse 28, namely "take hold of." Thus a survey of the evidence shows no notable difference in meaning between the two verbs. They would surely be understood as basically synonymous in Deut. 22:25 and 22:28, because of the otherwise notable parallels between the two verses."

Thom Stark also makes the same point in his review of Paul Copan's book "Is God a Moral Monster?". He notes that whenever the word "tapas" is used in reference to the capture of human or a group of humans, it ALWAYS refers to a seizure of them AGAINST THEIR FREE WILL.

@OSama Jesus at Matthew 12:1-5 was drawing a comparison between what was allowed on the Sabbath and what was not allowed. this ws done using a Comparison of Unlawfulness of David and the lawfulness of priests work on Sabbath.What Jesus did was allowed in Deuteronomy 23:34-25. It was also to show the hypocrisy of the pharisees.

here is a more thorough explanationhttps://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1212

Aristion, the comments you provided here do not establish that rape is definitely in view. In the first place, appealing to the Septuagint to show that rape is in view only establishes that this is how those specific Jews who translated the Hebrew understood it. It doesn't tell us whether this is how all the Jews understood the text.

Secondly, just because the word tapas may mean to seize violently in those particular passages doesn't tell us that this is what it means in this specific verse, nor does it prove that this is what it means in every single instance.

This is why you have a host of scholars who disagree with Poythress and co. Go back and reread all the scholars that Rogers quoted from.

Haven't made it down there yet. Going from North Bronx to South Brooklyn ends up being pretty much an all day trip. Where are you at? We should meet up when I go down there. You, me, and Paul should hang out.

Although it has been painful to watch as some people have been tossed to and fro by this discussion, I have been strategically waiting to see if Sami will pick up some of the mistakes that have been made here in the comments section, as at least one inconsequential atheist blogger has already done elsewhere, so that I might give him another drubbing. But since Sami doesn't appear to be biting, I will return today or tomorrow to stir things up again as the Lord wills.

One thing that might havent be mentioned clearly about the 2 words used in 22,28 and 22,25:

First of all, i am only in the beginning of learning hebrew and there are propably many people in this discussion involved, that can add further to this and have a much better knowlege of this topic!

Someone wrote, that both words can have an aggressive meaning and can mean to harm someone. That is correct, but its also correct, that both words can have a peaceful meaning! So its important to look at the context and the form that is used.In 22,28 the QAL form is used. QAL is like the normal form of a verb and expresses things like "i see you" or "i take the cup" and so on. So the verb can best be translated in the "normal" way. In 22,25 there are 2 differences from this.1. its used in connection with the small particle "be" and the 3rd person female suffix. So it clearly gives the object of the "action" being done and specifies that the target of the force being used is the girl and as i understand it emphasises this through the particle "be", while in 22,28 the suffix is attached directly to the verb and that is the very usual way, that is used in expressions as "i see you" - so the "normal" usage of the suffix. 2. and maybe this is even more important, the word is in the form of "hifil". This form expresses the "causative" form of a verb. So the "act" is the focus and is emphasized. So here the "taking" or being "strong on her" is the important part. I would argue, that this indicates to the aggressive meaning in this part of the text.

I dont know if the meaning becomes very clear, but in german i could explain it very well with the following example:The sentence: "I close the window"would mean in "QAL" that the window will soon be closed, while in hifil it would emphasis the act that i am closing the window. In the german language this is easy to understand the difference, i hope it shows the difference in english too in some way.

So to sum all things up:22,28 it is a plain description, that the guy is taking the girl with him - like taking her to his house or something.In 22,25 it emphasises the act, that "he is strong on her" (literaly translated).So 22,28 has a very general meaning, while 22,25 indicates some kind of aggressivenes or force on the girl.

I want you to show me where the New Testament, then, allows you, as a Christian, to work on Saturday. Here are our arguments that were posted above:

*************************I SAID:****************************JESUS SAID THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE THAT YOU COULD DO GOOD ON THE SABBATH. Yet, in the Exodus 35:1-3 verses that you gave, he is clearly and indesputably refuted! Jesus gave the example that what if your sheep falls in the well on Saturday. Will you not go now to pick it up? Yet, in your verses and in the ones that I gave above, YOU COULDN'T EVEN COOK FOR YOUR CHILDREN TO EAT, OR LIGHT A FIRE IF YOURS GOES OUT (it does get windy on the Sabbath also). AND IF YOU DO, THEN YOU WILL LOSE YOUR LIFE.

*************************Aaron Responded:****************************@Osamaas for the example of the sheep you are reading into things that are not there. Here is a question would I be desecrating it by allowing a man to suffer? Because If I did that would be considered evil thus desecration would occur on the Sabbath thus Jesus example is justified as keeping it holy by healing the man.

*************************My Question to Aaron:****************************Since Jesus Christ, after all, didn't really break the Sabbath, since doing voluntery good such as healing the sick, helping the distressed, etc... and not getting paid for it doesn't count as breaking the Sabbath, since it's not considered as paid labor (ex: A person working at McDonald on Saturday and getting paid for his hours), then show me how are you as a Christian are allowed to work on Saturday?

And by the way, the Israeli who got stoned to death for collecting wood, in the verses that I mentioned above, was doing good, since they were traveling and while traveling he collected woods for fire. This is what the verses that I mentioned above said. So there is absolutely no proof that he was doing paid labor. I know that Yahweh Almighty forbade even lighting fire on Saturday, which ******* again proves my point and disproves your point about all good allowed on Saturday. But be as it may, Mr. Aaron, (granting you the argument) show me how are you as a Christian are allowed to work for money on Saturday, today.

I find you to be super hilarious that you alias yourself with an NT verse, and speak in a pornographic analogy. So was it my butt or my other thing that was shown in your silly head Mr. John 8:24 Verse?

This is the filth that your societies breed that I was talking about. Pornography with all of its variations is a norm to your christian societies.

@Osama: Oh, please stop pretending to be civil AND ANSWEWR ME. I'M SICK OF BEING IGNORED. You still can't explain or apollogize for your "mistakes" on 1 Chron 5:5, or 12? Or your smears against me for saying I want hate crimes to happen? Or for your silly attacks on Christians saying they cause drunk driving, rape and wars when challenged about terrorist attacks by Muslims vs. Christians? You see, you are the opposite of civil or honest.

@ Osama I don;t work on the My Sundays and neither do I intend to. I spend most of my time on a bunch of hobbies for my entertainment (reading novels). I know most my other people in my church doesn't work on Sunday and because I know the people there quite well.

Osama Do you know how much fire wood it takes to last from sun up to sun down? it says do not light a fire but it does not say I can't keep one from continuously burning. where does it say I can;t cook?

If you do what God specifically told you not to do then its considered a sin because its disobeying God thus = evil therefore not holy

For a guy who admittedly has no problem giving his own daughters in Mutah (prostitution) "if it contributes to fixing a social problem," I find it very hypocritical of you to keep throwing jabs Western society. Perhaps you should reflect on what your moral values really are.

@osama Also you are doing exactly what those pharisees were doing in the bible. adding in little side laws that aren't in there. Jesus was criticizing them all through the new testament. Also because Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, He will know that better then the pharisees. some side laws involve how far you can be away from home on Sabbath. And looking at those verses at rather ridiculous and extreme tangents If you knew all the extras they add on

Osama is still one of the best things to happen to this blog. His hate, ignorance and stupidity are all the more reasons to not succumb to Islam and embrace Christ. You can see the hate and bigotry dripping from his posts. He is the best! LOL!

We can all watch as the Arab spring turns into a blood bath and another genocide in the name of Islams Allah! Pray for all people under the lie and control of Islam. Remember, they are all victims.

Osama said: "I find you to be super hilarious that you alias yourself with an NT verse, and speak in a pornographic analogy. So was it my butt or my other thing that was shown in your silly head Mr. John 8:24 Verse?"

Osama, every time you open your mouth you display more of your folly and ignorance. Hey can you please do all of us a favour? Could you please first improve your English comprehension before presumptuously posting your comments here? Or at least for God's sake look up the Internet - instead of making a fool of yourself and wasting other people's time! "Caught with pants down" is a common English phrase meaning "caught in an embarrassing situation" it not anything vulgar or pornographic. Just look it up. So all you can think of of is pornographic analogies, your butt or your "other thing"! This only goes to expose how filthy your own imagination is!!!

By the way, Mr. Osama Abdallah, you are the one to use the most vulgar, abusive and low class language on this blog. Any regular visitor of this blog can clearly see it and some have already commented about it asking David to kick you out. I don't even have to dig much in the past, these are your VERY OWN WORDS just ten days ago:

"However, notice how YOUR WOMEN were laughing their asses off about the man who got his penis cut off by his wife because he wanted to file for divorce... In your cuntography societies...".

Wow! And here you are complaining about some imagined vulgarity? Shamelessness at its best!

Osama said: "This is the filth that your societies breed that I was talking about. Pornography with all of its variations is a norm to your christian societies."

And like a broken record don't keep writing about pornography and filth in the "Christian societies" (you think the present US is a "Christian society"?)You, a self-proclaimed "Truth seeker", should have been able to find out by now. The pornographic industry in the West is NOT run by Christians but by atheists and liberals. Pornography is a sin and evil and no real Christian would like to be involved in it. In fact, Christians in the US fought against legalization of pornography and still oppose its dangerous influence on people.

The interesting fact is that while atheists and liberals tend to be the leading producers of pornography it seems that top consumer of bottom-of-the-hell-filthy pornography (with all its variations) is none other than Pakistan:

The irony is that Pakistan means "land of the pure"! And please just go to youtube and search for "Bacha Bazi". Would you get off your self-righteous pulpit and care to explain what is wrong with these Muslim societies?

The phrase "caught with your pants down" has nothing to do with pornography. It developed with military actions in mind. When an army attacked and caught their enemies completely off guard, the enemies were said to be "caught with their pants down," i.e. they're going to the bathroom with their pants around their ankles, completely unprepared to defend themselves. Only someone like Osama, who's obsessed with talk of pornography, could ever see something pornographic in this common idiom. That tells us more about Osama's mindset than it does anything else.

Its realy funny. Osama calls the "west" a pornographic society, but he is the only one that has something pornographic in mind when you say "caught with his pants down". In german there is almost the same saying "Jemanden mit runtergelassener Hose erwischen". And it realy has absolutely no sexual meaning. As David Wood pointed out, it has a military meaning. You cant defend yourself, with your pants around your ankles. And by the way it looks very silly, if you try to fight that way. I realy hope Osama sees in this example, that he might have some issues with Sex and Porn, that dont relate to the "western culture" but are more born from his own mind. And i realy dont want to offend him with saying that - it just troubles me, that someone sees something sexual in things, that dont relate to that topic.Maybe a lot of other "problems" between the western culture and muslims come from a similar "misunderstanding". For my part i think the open and tollerant way in the west leads to a moderate dealing with the issue. Maybe its a bit like a kid an chocolate... if you always forbid the kid to eat chocolate, he might get obsessed with it.

"@ Osama I don;t work on the My Sundays and neither do I intend to. I spend most of my time on a bunch of hobbies for my entertainment (reading novels). I know most my other people in my church doesn't work on Sunday and because I know the people there quite well.

Osama Do you know how much fire wood it takes to last from sun up to sun down? it says do not light a fire but it does not say I can't keep one from continuously burning. where does it say I can;t cook?

If you do what God specifically told you not to do then its considered a sin because its disobeying God thus = evil therefore not holy"

RESPONSE:

Mr. Aaron, there are a number of problems with your answer:

1- Sunday is not Saturday.

2- If you're conceding to the point that the Sabbath was never nullified in the NT, then what exactly is expected here? After all, Did not Christ in the NT say that he did not come to abolish the Law? So if the Law stands on the Sabbath, then does this mean that Christians now who violate Saturday (again not Sunday) and work for money on Saturday that they should be put to death?

3- Again, Christ said all good was allowed on the Sabbath. My verses above seem to refute this claim. But even if I grant you this argument, then we'd still be left with a big problem here on whether or not the Sabbath was actually nullified or not. Christians are confused about this point. This is only one example of many about why Allah Almighty in the Holy Quran calls Christianity a "crooked" religion, and a religion of "conjecture".

"The phrase "caught with your pants down" has nothing to do with pornography. It developed with military actions in mind. When an army attacked and caught their enemies completely off guard, the enemies were said to be "caught with their pants down," i.e. they're going to the bathroom with their pants around their ankles, completely unprepared to defend themselves. Only someone like Osama, who's obsessed with talk of pornography, could ever see something pornographic in this common idiom. That tells us more about Osama's mindset than it does anything else."

RESPONSE:

David Wood, even if this is a military idiom, this still doesn't refute my point nor does your post make much sense. My point still stands about the pornified ways of the society. You don't need to philosophise it and try to link my mindset with it. Pornography is in your face! One would have to be literally blind to not see it. I am sure you receive tons of porn emails on my website's email. And the sexual openness of this society is too obvious.

Now as to the other post about me said that I would have no problem giving my daughters into Muta, this is a flat out lie for the following reasons:

1- I was asked if the Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered me, then what would I have done.

2- Muta as I mentioned above wasn't done with virgin girls. Even with the shias today, muta is almost entirely forbidden on virgin girls, or girls who have never been married before. It was primarily made for divorced women and widows. And it was brief, because it came for a certain time during the Islamic development period.

Although a little later than I had hoped I now want to deliver on my word to reinvigorate this discussion. To that end I will expand on one especially fruitful line of evidence that was only mentioned in a cursory fashion in my article. Although no one so far as I can tell has addressed it in this combox, and perhaps that is due to the very abbreviated way that I mentioned it, expanding on this point allows me an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, particularly since it not only undermines the claim that the passage could be speaking ambiguously so as to deal with both non-consensual and consensual sex, a point that was made here, but also because an individual who commented elsewhere completely misunderstood the point in question.

The word find/found (Heb. matsa) is used several times over in these passages, but not always in the same way. In some cases it simply means to appear, acquire, meet or the like.

“If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man FIND her in the city, and lie with her…” (Dt. 22:23)

“But if the man FIND the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die… for he FOUND her in the field…” (Dt. 22:25, 27)

“If a man FIND a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her…” (Dt. 22:28)

In other instances the word clearly has a judicial function and refers to a matter being found out or proven, on which basis sentence is passed.

“If a man is FOUND lying with a woman married to a husband, THEN both of them shall die…” (Dt. 22:22)

It is clearly in the latter sense that the word is being used in its second occurrence in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Observe:

The NKJV especially brings out the force of this:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are FOUND OUT, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.”

“The last case: if a virgin was not betrothed, and a man seized her and lay with her, and THEY were FOUND, i.e., discovered or CONVICTED of THEIR deed, the man was to pay the father of the girl fifty shekels of silver, for the reproach brought upon him and his house, and to marry the girl whom he had humbled, without ever being able to divorce her. This case is similar to the one mentioned in Exodus 22:15-16. The omission to mention the possibility of the father refusing to give him his daughter for a wife, makes no essential difference. It is assumed as self-evident here, that such a right was possessed by the father.” (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Although the Septuagint blurs the distinction between chazak and taphas that obtains in the Hebrew text, rendering them both by a single Greek word, biazomai, and also fails to give unambiguous expression to the fact that both the man and the woman are said to be found (LXX: “…and HE/IT is discovered/found”), it does accurately render and give some support to the idea that “found” has a legal or judicial connotation. At least it is true to say that this is recognized by some translators of the LXX as the following shows:

“…and this can be PROVEN.” (www.2001translation.com/)

There are many other examples of the word being used this way, one of which is Esther 2:23:

“And when INQUISITION was made of the matter, it was FOUND OUT; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king.”

Perhaps the best example for this usage of the word is that found in Genesis 44:

“11 Then they hasted, and took down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack. 12 And he searched, and began at the eldest, and left off at the youngest: and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack. 13 Then they rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass, and returned to the city. 14 And Judah and his brethren came to Joseph's house; and he was yet there: and they fell before him on the ground. 15 And Joseph said unto them, What deed is this that ye have done? know ye not that such a man as I can indeed divine? 16 And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we CLEAR OURSELVES? God hath FOUND OUT (Heb. ) the iniquity of thy servants: behold, we are my lord's bondmen, both we, and he also in whose hand the cup is found. 17 And he said, Far be it from me that I should do so: the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my bondman; but as for you, get you up in peace unto your father.”

Commenting on the phrase “God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants,” which some might mistakenly understand to speak of a bare discovery, the following is pointed out in Nemesis Sacra:

“These words were spoken by Judah for himself and his brethren to their unrecognized brother, after the discovery of the cup in Benjamin’s sack, and their return in utter dismay to Joseph’s presence. But two of thse words have been inadequately rendered by our authorized translators. Though “found out” [in the sense of discovery – AR] is doubtless the primary meaning of the Hebrew verb “matsa,” that verb has a secondary and more impressive signification, viz., to convict judicially, and then to pass sentence. “Avon,” too, here and in many other passages construed iniquity, often signifies the punishment of iniquity, which is precisely the sense of the passage before us. Thus corrected, the meaning is clear. (Nemesis Sacra: A Series of Inquiries, Philological and Critical, into the Scripture Doctrine of Retribution on Earth, pp. 76-77) (Emphasis original)

Even the footnotes of the NET Bible on this passage, without realizing how it undermines the rape interpretation in Dt. 22:28-29, makes the judicial thrust of this manner of speaking explicit:

“28sn God has exposed the sin of your servants. The first three questions are rhetorical; Judah is stating that there is nothing they can say to clear themselves. He therefore must conclude that they have been found guilty.” (bold emphasis mine)

From the above it is quite evident that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not talking about a case of non-consensual sex but a sexual act in which both the man and the woman are complicit. Hence one of the many reasons that such notable Hebraists and Reformed scholar Meredith Kline disagree with the unnamed scholars alluded to by Puritan Calvinist.

@ OsamaDo you know what the difference in ending a contract with fulfilling with its requirements and ending it by abolishing it?

But then again i might be asking too much from you to work it out your self by asking this question since you can;t even work out the moral difference between attacking those who are unarmed and those who are. and also 1 corintheans 5:5 as well. also please look up is a covenant in a dictionary before you reply

Also like to add the old covenant was made for the Jews and not the gentiles, thus can not be applied for us but with the new covenant he has included gentiles in.

Two of Mr. Wood's very best (I'm impressed by them) videos on Youtube are going to be thoroughly refuted, insha'Allah very soon. They are:

1- Who killed Muhammad?

2- Did Dhul-Qarnayn reach the place of the setting of the sun?

The latter one is pretty simple actually. Have Mr. Wood just read all of the 7 or 10 Noble Verses that talk about the story, then he would've probably seen how his argument is easily refuted. Here are brief points about this:

1- The Arabic word MAKAAN or MAKAN for the English word "place" doesn't exist in any of the 10 Noble Verses. So the translation "PLACE OF THE SETTING OF THE SUN" is 100% wrong.

2- The Noble Verses said ATBA'A SABABA, which translate "then he marched on", or "he continued on", OR IT COULD ALSO MEAN HE SENT SOMEONE ON HIS BEHALF. The word is ATBA'A, which could be translated as "He sent" or "He went". TABA'A, on the other hand, only means "He went". But ATBA'A could mean both.

3- The Noble Verses that Mr. Wood only read one Verse from say the following in full context: Dhul-Qarnayn marched on until he reach sun set (again, MAKAAN is not in the Noble Verses). He WAJADA (found or saw in Holy Quran) the sun set in a pool of murkey water. He then marched on until sun rise, and he found people in a near-by town that had problems with the people of Gog and Magog."

*****************************QUESTIONS TO MR. DAVID WOOD:********************************Where does the Quran say that Dhul-Qarnayn reached the two places where the sun rises and the sun sets? This means that he would have had to travel the entire Earth (assuming that the Quran says the earth is flat, which is absolutely doesn't. On the contrary, the Holy Quran Says DAHAHA (made spherical) about the shape of the earth).

So Mr. Wood, do you see anywhere in the Noble Verses about Dhul-Qarnayn traveling the whole earth and reached the places of sun rise and sun set? AND WOULD HE NOT HAVE CLASHED WITH OTHER ARMIES AND EMPIRES IF HE HAD DONE THAT? He couldn't even go further when he learned that Gog and Magog were there waiting for him and his army!

As to the first video above, I'll get to it in thorough details when I post my video-response, insha'Allah. And you'll be the judges, insha'Allah. Mr. Wood fell victim to much mistranslations. I will thoroughly provide the details in Arabic and English, insha'Allah.

@ Osama also is good deeds a sin? and is disobeying God a sin? because if it is then sin is evil thus not a good deed and the man with the fire wood was sinning thus he was doing evil. healing was not evil and neither did God explicitly condemn it. because according to you doing good is classified as work.

so the Jews will have a issue loading the sacrifices and unloading it at the temple i suppose because you will have to also classify it as work since healing is work as you claimed.

you should sign up in the Jewish pharisees making up side laws. I am sure you fit right with them. because you are forbidding what is not forbidden.

Sorry I failed to return to address that question in the other thread. Here is my answer:

There is no explicitly stated punishment for the woman (though such may be inferred from what is stated, provided we take into account other socio-cultural factors known from both the Bible and ANE sources). But the short answer is that this in no way hampers the point that both are complicit, for in a passage no one disputes is about seduction rather than rape, no punishment is explicitly said to follow upon the woman:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and has sexual relations with her, he must surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father refuses to give her to him, he must pay money for the bride price of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17)

"@ OsamaDo you know what the difference in ending a contract with fulfilling with its requirements and ending it by abolishing it?

But then again i might be asking too much from you to work it out your self by asking this question since you can;t even work out the moral difference between attacking those who are unarmed and those who are. and also 1 corintheans 5:5 as well. also please look up is a covenant in a dictionary before you reply

Also like to add the old covenant was made for the Jews and not the gentiles, thus can not be applied for us but with the new covenant he has included gentiles in."

RESPONSE:

I don't want to sound very disrespectful to my Lord, Jesus Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, but this whole hoax about Jews and Gentiles only happened after the Jews dumped (don't really want to use a stronger word than this!) Christ, WHOM HE CALLED THE GENTILES "DOGS OF THE JEWS" for the sake of the Jews.

So you were a dog for every Jew as far as Christ was concerned, and he was going around boasting that "I WAS ONLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL." Then after the Jews (again don't want to use terrible words here) to him, then and only then he included the Gentiles in his mission.

I am sorry, but this is not the version of Christ of Islam. The Christ of the NT is an inconsistent person who doesn't even know the OT Law, and uses absolute words/statements that have no meanings or value. Absolute statements are ones such as "you always", "he never" and so on.

Your whole religion is confused Mr. Aaron. You couldn't even answer the Sabbath point. Your people had to invent Sunday as their Sabbath. Do you not see how man-made this is? It's clear that Christ never even DARED to break the Sabbath. Therefore my brother, Yahweh Almighty is indeed Greater than Jesus, and Yahweh Almighty is indeed the GOD Almighty of Jesus, and Jesus is no more than a creation of GOD Almighty that was created from His Word and was filled with a Spirit from Him (as we also were created from the Spirit, but Jesus had extra Spirit in him). This is my Jesus and my Messiah. You don't even know what to follow my brother. Everything has to be man-made.

@Osama, you're not a truth seeker, and you before you make any more posts you really need to appollogize for your mistakes on 1 Chron 5:5, 6:12, and your dishonest accusations about Christians causing rape, drunk driving and wars, (even though Christians are commanded to NOT do those things!!).

You have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to complain about "islamaphobia" or misinformation about Islam when you spread outright FALSEHOODS about Christianity. Perhaps you should get to know Christianity better before speaking about it, and do what you actually say? You've been running now for months. Stop running and own up.

Osama said: "My point still stands about the pornified ways of the society. You don't need to philosophise it and try to link my mindset with it. Pornography is in your face! One would have to be literally blind to not see it. I am sure you receive tons of porn emails on my website's email. And the sexual openness of this society is too obvious."

Your point is false, because it is based on the false premise that the phrase is pornographic when it is not. Also, yes there is much sexualization in our society, but that really from the secularization of society. You can't show how Christianity has anything to do with it, so to tie Christianity with pornography is false, and Christaphobic! (Again, you show you're a hypocrite!)

"Christians are confused about this point. This is only one example of many about why Allah Almighty in the Holy Quran calls Christianity a "crooked" religion, and a religion of "conjecture"."

Oops. It looks like Osama has committed apostasy again! What did Mohammad say about Christianity? He called them the people of the book, and said people should judge his words from the Gospel and Torrah! I can't find anything about Mohammad calling Christians "crooked" or being based on "conjecture". Even if he did, this would contradict the positive things he said, unless you're saying the bible and torrah were changed during his life time!

This would be a miracle happening so fast, and because we have records from BEFORE MOHAMMAD WAS BORN that contradict the gospel. That Mohammad appeals to a book that contradicts himself. that is earlier PROVES that Islam is FALSE. (The "corruption argument has nothing to stand on!)

n Arabic, each word must be derived from its root. The root usually consists of three letters that can be manipulated, by adding vowels, prefixes and suffixes in order to produce different words with different meanings. For example, "ka-ta-ba" (to write) is the root for many words such as kitab (book), maktaba (library), katib (author), maktoob (written), kitabat (writings) et cetera.Let's now take the word mentioned to mean egg of an ostrich, "Duhiya". This word is not a root. It is a noun and is derived from "da-ha-wa", the same root that the verb "dahaha" comes from. Furthermore, Duhiya does not even mean the egg of an ostrich. This is what the most respected dictionaries have to say on this subject:[edit] Lisan Al Arabالأُدْحِيُّ و الإدْحِيُّ و الأُدْحِيَّة و الإدْحِيَّة و الأُدْحُوّة مَبِيض النعام في الرمل , وزنه أُفْعُول من ذلك , لأَن النعامة تَدْحُوه برِجْلها ثم تَبِيض فيه وليس للنعام عُشٌّ . و مَدْحَى النعام : موضع بيضها , و أُدْحِيُّها موضعها الذي تُفَرِّخ فيه .ِTranslation: Al-udhy, Al-idhy, Al-udhiyya, Al-idhiyya, Al-udhuwwa:The place in sand where an ostrich lays its egg. That's because the ostrich spreads out the earth with its feet then lays its eggs there, an ostrich doesn't have a nest.الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . دَحَا الأَرضَ يَدْحُوها دَحْواً بَسَطَها . وقال الفراء في قوله والأَرض بعد ذلك دَحاها قال : بَسَطَها ; قال شمر : وأَنشدتني أَعرابية : الحمدُ لله الذي أَطاقَابَنَى السماءَ فَوْقَنا طِباقَاثم دَحا الأَرضَ فما أَضاقاقال شمر : وفسرته فقالت دَحَا الأَرضَ أَوْسَعَها ; وأَنشد ابن بري لزيد بن عمرو بن نُفَيْل : دَحَاها , فلما رآها اسْتَوَتْعلى الماء , أَرْسَى عليها الجِبالاو دَحَيْتُ الشيءَ أَدْحاهُ دَحْياً بَسَطْته , لغة في دَحَوْتُه ; حكاها اللحياني . وفي حديث عليّ وصلاتهِ , اللهم دَاحِيَ المَدْحُوَّاتِ يعني باسِطَ الأَرَضِينَ ومُوَسِّعَها , ويروى ; دَاحِيَ المَدْحِيَّاتِ . و الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . يقال : دَحَا يَدْحُو و يَدْحَى أَي بَسَطَ ووسع Translation: To daha the earth: means to spread it out. Then it mentions a couple of Arabic poems that confirm this meaning. Anyone who can read Arabic will find this to be the definitive proof that Daha means to spread out.[edit] Al Qamoos Al Muheet(دَحَا): الله الأرضَ (يَدْحُوهَا وَيَدْحَاهَا دَحْواً) بَسَطَهاTranslation: Allah daha the Earth: He spread it out.[edit] Al Waseetدَحَا الشيءَ: بسطه ووسعه. يقال: دحا اللهُ الأَرض Translation: To daha something: means to spread it out. For example: Allah daha the Earth.[edit] Lane's LexiconDhaheelath see dahl, near the end of the paragraph. dhahhal One who hunts, or catches game, by making use of the dhahool so in the verse cited voce dhahool l. (TA.) Dhahil Very rancorous, malevolent, malicious, or spiteful; wont to hide enmity, and violent haired, in his heart, and to watch for opportunities to indulge it, or exercise it. (Az, TA.)Dhahool (an arabicized word from the Pers. Dhakhool) A thing which the hunter of gazelles sets up (for the purpose of scaring them into his toil or into the neighbourhood of his place of concealment), consisting of pieces of wood: (S : ) or a thing which the hunter sets up for (the purpose of scaring) the (wild) asses, (K, TA,) and As adds, and the gazelles, (TA,) consisting of pieces of wood like short scars (K,* TA) stuck in the ground, with some pieces of ragged cloth upon their heads; and sometimes set up at night, for (the purpose of searing) the gazelle, with the addition of a lighted lamp; (TA; ) (whence) Dhu-r-Rummeh says, Wa Yashrabna Ajnan Wannujoomu Ka’annaha Masabeeh dahhalin Yuzakkee Zubalaha(And they drink water that is altered for the worse in taste and colour, while the stars are like the lamps of the hunter by means of the Dahool when he make. their wicks to blaze brightly): (TA : ) the pl. is dawaheel (K.)

1. Dhaha first pers. Dhahaithu,aor. yad’ha inf.n. dhah’ya: see 1 in art. Dhahoo.__ dhahaithul ibil (K,) inf. n. as above, (TA,) I drove the camel,; (K; ) as also dhahaithuha (TA.)(4 mentioned by Freytag as on the authority of the K is a mistake for 5.)5 (mentioned in this art. in the V and TA): see art. Dhahoo7 (mentioned in this art. by MF): see art. Dhahoo.

Dhah’yath A single act of dhahy, i. e. spreading, (Msb.) = A she-ape, or she-monkey. (K.) dhihyath A mode, or manner, of dhahyu, i. e. spreading, &c. (Msb.) = A headman, or chief, (R, K, TA,) in an absolute sense, in the dial. of El-Yemen, (R, TA,) and particularly, of an army, or a military force. (K, TA.) AA says that it signifies "a lord," or "chief," in Pers.; but seems to be from dhahahu aor. yadh’hoohu, meaning "he spread it, and made it plain or even ;" because it is for the headman or chief to do this; the a. being changed into LS as it is in swibyath and fith’yath; and if so, it belongs to art. dahoo. (TA.) (Accord. to Golius, the pl. is dihau; but I think that it is more probably dhahan.) It is in a trad. that what is called Albaithul Ma’emoor (q.v. in art. Amr) is entered every day by seventy thousand companies of angels, every one of these having with it a dhih’yath and consisting seventy thousand angels. (TA.)Ud’hiyyun and Id’hiyyun see art. dhaha.Ud’hiyyath: see ud’hiyyu, in art. dahoo, in two places.

Dahw1. Daha (., MM_b;,, 1,) first pers. Dahouth aor, yad'hoo inf. N. dahoo He spread; spread out, or forth; expanded; or extended; (S, Msb, K; ) a thing; (K; ) and, when said of God, the earth; (Fr, S, Mb, 1V; ) As also daha first pers. dahaithu (K in art. daha) aor. yaad’heae inf. n. dahae: (Msb, and K in art. dahae : ) or He (God) made the earth wide, or ample; as explained by an Arab woman of the desert to Sh: (TA : ) also, said of an ostrich, (S, TA,) he expanded, and made wide, (TA,) with his foot, or leg, the place where he was about to deposit his eggs: (S, TA : ) and, said of a man, he spread, &c., and made plain, even, or smooth. (TA in art. dhaha ) - Also, said of a man, (K,,) aor. yad’hoo, inf. n. dahwu(TA,) i.q. Jamie as also daja; on the authority of 1Abr. (TA.) (You say, dhahaha He compressed her; like as you say, dhajaha.) _ Also He threw, or cast, and impelled, propelled, oi removed from its place, a stone, with his hand (TA.) One says also, to him who is playing with walnuts, abidil maddha va adhhuhu, meaning (Make thou the distance far, and) throw it. (S,TA.: See also midh’hath, in two places. And of a torrent one says, dhaha bilbat’hai It cast along (the soft earth and pebbles in its course; or drove then along). (TA.) And of rain, one says, dhaha Al hissa an waj’hil Ardhi (S,Msb) It drove the pebbles from the surface of the earth; (Msb; ) or removed them. (TA.) (See also dhaha, in the next art.) And aldhahwu bilhijarathi also signifies The vying, one with another, in throwing stones, and striving to surpass (in doing so); as also al Midahath (inf. n- of dahee). (TA marra yad’hoo inf.n. dahow said of a horse, He went along throwing out his fore legs without raising his hoofs much from the ground. (S,TA.) = dhahal bathan The belly was, or became, large, and hanging down; (Kr, K; ) and Indhahee (the belly) was, or became, wide, or distended: (MF : ) or both signify it (the belly) became swollen, or inflated, or big,. and hung down, by reason of fatness or disease; as also Dhau and Indah (TA in art dooh.) 3. Dhahee inf.n. Mudahath: see 1. 5. Thud'hee He spread out, or extended, himself; syn. Thabassuth. (K: in art. Daha.) You say, nama fulan fathadhahha Such a one slept, and (extended himself so that he) lay upon a vide space of ground (TA in that art.) - And thadhahhathil ibilu fil ardhi The camels made hollows in the ground where they lay down, it being soft; leaving therein cavities like those of bellies: thus they do only when they are fat. (El-'Itreefee, TA in art. Daha. ) 7. see 1, last sentence. 9. id'havi (of the measure if’alath for if’alle like Ar’awa) It (a thing, TA) was, or became, spread, spread out or forth, expanded, or extended. (K.)Dhahin (act. part n. of 1). Allahumma dhahil Mad’huwwath in a prayer of ‘Alee, means O God, the Spreader and Expander of the (seven) earths: (TA : ) al Mdhuwwath (properly) signifies the things that are spread, &c.; as also Al Mudh’hiyyath. (TA in art. dhaha ) _ Al’Matharuddahee The rain that removes (or drives) the pebbles from the surface of the earth. (TA.)Ud'hiyy (S.K) (Originally od'huwa of the measure Uf’ool from dhahaithu but said in the S to be of that measure from dhahouthu the dial. var. dhahaithu not being there mentioned,) and and id’hiyy and Ud’hiyyath and ud’huwwath (K)

The place of the laying of eggs, (S, K,) and of the hatching thereof, (S,) , of the ostrich, (S. K. ) in the sand; (K; ) because that bird expands it, and makes it wide, with its foot, or leg; for the ostrich has no (nest such as is termed) Ush (S: ) pl. Adahin (TA in the present art.) and Adahee (i. e., if not a mistranscription, Adahiyyu agreeably with the sing.): (TA in art. dhaha and mudhhiyya (likewise) signifies the place of the eggs of the ostrich. (S.) (Hence,) binthu Adh’hiyyathun A female ostrich. (TA.)_(Hence also,) Al Udkhiyyu and Al Id’hiyyu A certain Mansion of the Moon, (K, TA,) (namely, the Twenty-first Mansion,) between the Na’aai’m sa’dha zabih (more commonly) called Al Baldath likened to the Adhahhee of the ostrich. (TA.)Ud’huwwath and udh’hiyyath: see the next preceding paragraph, in three places: - and for the latter, see also mid’hath, below.Mad’han see ud’hiyyMid’hath A wooden thing with which a child is driven along (yud’ha), and which, passing over the ground, sweeps away everything against which it comes (K, TA.) - Accord. to Sh, A certain thing with which the people of Mekkeh play: he says, I heard El-Asadee describe it thus: Almadahiyy and Almasadiyy signify stones like the (small round cake of bread called) qursath, according to the size which a hole is dug, and widened a little: then they throw those stones (yad’hoona biha) to that hole and if the stone fall therein, the person wins; but if not, he is overcome: you say of him yad’hoo and yasdoo when he throws the stones (Iza dhahaha) over the ground to the hole: and the hole is called ud'hiyyath. (TA.) (Accord. to Freytag, the authority of the Deewan El-Hudhaleeyeen, A round thing made of lead, by the throwing of which persons contend together.)Almadhuwwath and almad’hiyyath see Dahin

Google, the world’s most popular Internet search engine, has found in a survey that mostly Muslim states seek access to sex-related websites and Pakistan tops the list. Google found that of the top 10 countries - searching for sex-related sites - six were Muslim, with Pakistan on the top. The other Muslim countries are Egypt at number 2, Iran at 4, Morocco at 5, Saudi Arabia at 7 and Turkey at 8. Non-Muslim states are Vietnam at 3, India at 6, Philippines at 9 and Poland at 10

Arabic is the 2nd most common language that is used to search for “gay sex.” It’s the number one language for search involving “sexy.” As you can see in that same graph, Iran is at 3 and Egypt is at 4, listed under regions where search on “sexy” was most conducted.Arabic is the 2nd most common language that is used to search for “gay man.” The countries that most search for this is currently Malaysia (#1) and Indonesia (#2). For “gay girl,” Arabic is also the 2nd most common language.For “child porn,” Turkey is the 2nd country where this is most searched. Turkish is the #1 language used.Turkey has one of the most searches for the word “porno.” Morocco is at 5. Turkish is #1 language used to conduct the search in. Indonesia is currently #1 country that search for the word “vagina.”Turkey is not an Arab country, nor are some of the other countries I listed. But they are Muslim, so I thought the findings were fascinating to say the least. All of this information is not in the least bit shocking, but it’s quite ironic.What do you guys think?Update:Egypt is currently #1 for “fat sex.”Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey and Egypt are at the top of the list when it comes to “animal sex.”For “children sex,” Pakistan is at #1, Egypt #2 and Iran #3. The most common languages used to conduct the search in are Arabic and Turkish.For “sexy children,” these results are probably the most disturbing. Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, followed by Turkey at #9.For “sexy child,” Pakistan is #1, followed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. Common languages are Persian, Arabic, and Turkish.For “homo sex,” Indonesia is #1, Morocco is at 6.For “rape,” Pakistan is at 1. Malaysia is at 3.For “bird sex,” Egypt is at 1. (Come ON!)For “ass sex,” Saudi Arabia comes first, followed directly by Egypt and Morocco. Most common language is Arabic.

The Quran clearly states that the earth is flat and in it's flatness it's shape is spherical. Muslims are so desperate and delusional."

RESPONSE:

Thank you for conceding to the Glorious Quran's Miracles, Truth and beauty.

Now if you put aside your hate, and start using your brain more rationally, then you'll see that the Noble Verses that speak about the earth being "LIKE A CARPET TO US", BUT YET is SPHERICAL (DAHAHA) are not in anyway, shape or form contradicting to each others. Earth to your body is going zero miles per hours, is flat and is sitting still (not moving in space nor is rotating around its own axle). But in space, it's totally the opposite of all of this.

You see, the Prophet of Islam was already called MAJNOON (crazy) by the Arabs. Allah Almighty in the Holy Quran spoke about the earth being rolling in space, suspended in space, traveling in space, is spherical, is round, AND IS THE BEST AMONG ITS GROUP.

I have used 7 big and encyclopedic dictionaries that thoroughly proved this in great details at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm. Please read it very objectively and patiently. It is a HUGEEEE article with countless quotations, definitions and citations of Noble Verses from the Holy Quran.

All of your points above are addressed in great details in the article. I promise you!

Did you know that it is a 100% accurate that the earth's moutains formed after the earth expanded? The earth initialy was 10% of its current size today. Then it grew, and as it grew, mountains started forming and shapping. Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and life on earth as you know it and live it today begain 3.8 billion years ago. People were gigantic! Gravity was much lesser and the bodies were much much larger due to the weakness of gravity.

These statements are what the Western scientists said and not what Osama Abdallah said.

@ Osamahearing all that from someone who can;t even get his verses right, shows me the dishonesty of a person. As I mention you messing up kings and numbers and also 1 corintheans 5:5 (still waiting :D)

also Who was the old covenant made with? Jews or the gen tiles? God used it to separate it with the Jews and gentiles then in the new covenant join them together into one big group.

@OSama"Did you know that it is a 100% accurate that the earth's moutains formed after the earth expanded? The earth initialy was 10% of its current size today. Then it grew, and as it grew, mountains started forming and shapping. Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and life on earth as you know it and live it today begain 3.8 billion years ago. People were gigantic! Gravity was much lesser and the bodies were much much larger due to the weakness of gravity."

Osama, as someone who has taken physics and geology your antics are making me laughing so hard at you its not a joke.

here is the issue with Osama's antics here

1. mountains are formed from lava and plate tectonics pushing things upwards while other plates sinks. which means the radius of the earth is not going to change. this is due to the collision of forcing one plate going up wards and the other one downwards. and turning into magma once more to be reused at places where plates are spreading. thus its a constant continuous cycle2. gravity is created from the mass of the planet. since the matter was there from the beginning and the law for conservation of mass must be maintained extra gravity is not possible

thus Osama has science knowledge less then even a high school student. Because even high school student at the age of 16 should learn these subjects in my country.

muslims is accusing the Bible to be a "forgery" of the Will God of Abraham, which The God Of Abraham had it recorded by various of His "appointees" backed up by thousands of manuscripts.....unlike the koran, drafted/recorded by one person's experience with no "pedigree"(by an unknown "law firm", of dubious standing & character)no verifications of 'qualification', "documents" burnt & in complete opposition with the original Will !

There is something seriously wrong with this picture!!

satan, is again trying to take away our Will & inheritance, just as he did with Adam.

How can koran EVER be the will of god, when The God of Abraham had already written out His Will, The Bible.

We know the God of Abraham is all Knowing & Perfect, therefore it is outrageous to even think for a moment that He will draft out 'new' will!

He had already warned us that there will be attempts to draft out a 'new will'. He also warned us that they will give us the impresssion that our Advocate, Lord Jesus Christ has 'assisted' them in drafing out the 'new will', which we now know as koran.

The onus is on muslims to proof but satan the master crafter has twisted things, and trying to shift the onus on Christians... we need to be alert to this crafty manipulation of changing our legal standing.

To show how seriosly wrong you areIF earth was 10 % of its current size. assuming earths mass is constant to fit with the conservation mass that will mean gravity will even be stronger thus making shorter humans

here is gravitational formula of earth

g = GM/R^2

if earth was 10% of current = stronger gravity= stunted growth meaning Osama is wrong to the core.

Osama sorry but you cant refute facts and change defintions. I understand thats how Islam and Muslims think. That they can redefine and mold things into what they wish it were instead of how things truly are but thats not how truth works. You answered nothing in those ridiculous ramblings. I showed you the lexicons and the definitions. And even what your own early scholars believed. You find out from the West that the earth is not flat and then you redefine what they intended. Because you have to. You are suffering from delusions, conditioning, indoctrination, Dunning - Kruger effect and cognitive dissonance. Go look those terms up. And of course you never responded to your hypocrisy about the pornographic West. Take a look at the statistics. Your silence is deafening!

(File)How do you observe dawn-to-dusk fasting when there is neither dawn nor dusk?

It's a question facing a small but growing number of Muslims celebrating the holy month of Ramadan on the northern tip of Europe, where the the sun barely dips below the horizon at this time of year.

In Rovaniemi, a northern Finland town that straddles the Arctic Circle at 66 degrees north, the sun rises around 3:20 a.m. and sets about 11:20pm. That means Muslims who observe Ramadan could be required to go without food or drink for 20 hours.

In a few years, Ramadan will begin even closer to the summer solstice in late June, when the sun doesn't set at all.

Qur'an 2:187It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the fast. They are raiment for you and ye are raiment for them. Allah is Aware that ye were deceiving yourselves in this respect and He hath turned in mercy toward you and relieved you. So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn. Then strictly observe the fast till nightfall and touch them not, but be at your devotions in the mosques. These are the limits imposed by Allah, so approach them not. Thus Allah expoundeth His revelation to mankind that they may ward off (evil)Qur'an 2:187This verse tells Muslims, when fasting, to not eat,drink, or have sexual intercourse during sunlight hours. This can cause a huge problem for those who live close to the North or South poles.The closer we get to the poles, the longer our days or nights become. They can eventually extend for up to several months each, making this verse, the fourth Pillar of Islam, impossible to practice without starving yourself to death. Again, this problem would not exist on a flat earth model.

No Eskimo could be a Muslim. Why didnt Allah think of this problem? Oh wait, because your Allah is Mohamed.

"Did you know that it is a 100% accurate that the earth's moutains formed after the earth expanded? The earth initialy was 10% of its current size today. Then it grew, and as it grew, mountains started forming and shapping. Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and life on earth as you know it and live it today begain 3.8 billion years ago. People were gigantic! Gravity was much lesser and the bodies were much much larger due to the weakness of gravity."

I hope you meant it as a joke and not to assist your argument.

You may be right, that the Earth was 10% of its size sometime in its beginning, but that would be the time, the Sunsystem was forming and the earth was still in its growing state. Meaning it was still a wobly hot kind of mass, without mountains or anything. As Aaron pointed out, the mountains come from the moving of plates and are either made form Lava (most of the undersea mountains) or from pushing one plate under the other. There were definitely NEVER any living things on earth, when the earth was at 10% of its size, as this would be just in the beginning of the sun-system, when all planets formed etc..and at that time the earth was more like a molten lava ball, without the crust or anything.When the life began, the earth was already at its today size/mass - well, at least the mass growth can be ignored, that came from some more asteroids and dust that fell on the earth since then. I am a bit frustrated that my english is too bad to write a more accurate article here, but your answer is realy ridiculous - and you are calling me "shallow minded"?You say, that some western scientists claim what you said? That group must be far from being the majority! How many do claim that? 3? 4?

"I am a bit frustrated that my english is too bad to write a more accurate article here, but your answer is realy ridiculous - and you are calling me "shallow minded"?You say, that some western scientists claim what you said? That group must be far from being the majority! How many do claim that? 3? 4?"

RESPONSE:

The only ridiculous thing here is you for entirely brushing off what NASA and other Scientific institutions and Geologists and Scientists have said and proven. Why don't you read the URL that I gave above, and check the Western references and sources for yourself (videos included) before you come here and vomit nonesense as if you were a scientist yourself?

Also captin "brain", if you take a very simple look at the planet earth today, then you'll see all of its continents to be in shape (almost a perfect shape) of a jigsaw puzzle. This means that if the earth were to reduce in size, as a ball deflates, then all of these continents would come back together and close in on each others as one small land mass. Scientists also have proven and stated: "The smaller the planet, the lesser its gravity, and the larger the bodies of all creatures living on it." So yes, earth was much smaller, and the bodies on this planet were much much larger. This is why we had dinasaurs and even much bigger creatures that no longer exist today.

(File)How do you observe dawn-to-dusk fasting when there is neither dawn nor dusk?"

RESPONSE:

Allah Almighty responded to this beautifully. The following two Noble Verses will answer you:

[002:185] The month of Ramadhan, wherein was revealed the Koran, for a guidance to men, and for manifestations of guidance, and for a Discrimination. And he amongst you who beholds this month then let him fast it (فمن شهد منكم الشهر فليصمه); but he who is sick or on a journey, then another number of days;- God desires for you what is easy, and desires not for you what is difficult,- that ye may complete the number, and say, 'Great is God,' for that He has guided you; haply ye may give thanks.

[002:187] You are allowed on the night of the fast to approach your wives: they are your garment and ye are their garment. God knoweth that ye defraud yourselves therein, so He turneth unto you and forgiveth you! Now, therefore, go in unto them with full desire for that which God hath ordained for you; and eat and drink until ye can discern a white thread from a black thread by the daybreak: then fast strictly till night (وكلوا واشربوا حتي يتبين لكم الخيط الابيض من الخيط الاسود من الفجر ثم اتموا الصيام الى الليل), and go not in unto them, but rather pass the time in the Mosques. These are the bounds set up by God: therefore come not near them. Thus God maketh his signs clear to men that they may fear Him.

@Osama. Oh, stop pretending to be the scholar. You claim a person "vomits nonsense" when it is exactly what you do, and then (selectivly it seems) ignore people who call you on your nonsense. You've made a number of FALSE claims about what the bible teaches (1 Cor 5:5, 6:12), and the teachings of Christianity (that it leads to porn, rape drunk driving and wars with no citations to give the slightest inkling of what you're talking about, though the bible forbids many of those things). This is vile and UNEXCUSABLE, and shows you are completely DISHONEST and HATEFUL.

"So, get serious, get real, or just get lost."Follow your own advice. Start taking responsibility for your past mistakes and stop slandering (I want hate crimes to happen against mulsims?)and using name calling ("captain brain") against people who disagree with you.

On this topic alone you've ignored EVERY SINGLE POST when I've called for you to explain or apollogize for your false statements I mention above. And you've done it in most every other post I've posted in as well! once I asked if you were ignoring me, you responded, but then when I repeated my greivences, you ignored me again!! Every time anyone mentions 1 Cor you ignore it, even once you quoted someomne asking you about it! (oops!) but then don't respond to that part!

Do you know what satan's "best hit" will be to GOD Almighty? You can't even touch GOD Almighty. If you were to declare war on GOD Almighty, then you would have no power or means to strike GOD Almighty, directly. So how will satan strike GOD Almighty after he was kicked out of the Presense of Allah Almighty and Heaven? Satan will command/intice mankind to ALTER THE CREATION OF ALLAH ALMIGHTY FROM ITS FUNDAMENTALS as a response to Allah Almighty's pride towards us being this new and awsome creation that all the Beings of Heaven had to bow down to.

Satan also told Allah Almighty that they (us humans) were created from mud, and stinky material, while he was created from much greater material. So becasue satan was doomed because of us, his ultimate response to Allah Almighty is to make a mockery out of Allah Almighty's *special* creation that He, the Almighty, had all the Beings bow down to.

****************************HUMAN CLONING: SATAN'S FINAL BATTLE BEFORE THE HOUR!*******************************

[004:119] `And assuredly I will lead them astray and assuredly I will arouse in them vain desires, and assuredly I will incite them and they will cut the ears of cattle; and assuredly I will incite them and they will alter ALLAH's creation.' And whoever takes Satan for a friend instead of ALLAH, he certainly suffers a manifest loss.

It is an indisputable fact that cloning started by taking ear cells from the ears. The ear is still the preferred and best part of the body to take somatic cells from. Read what the Western Scientists said about this at: www.answering-christianity.com/cloning.htm.

The Holy Quran is the Divine Truth! Embrace Islam my brothers and sisters in humanity and in GOD's Creation.

Omg - did I really just read that answer fromOsama? I would like to cite somebody at this point: "the discussion is over" ;-) ....Actually nobody should wonder anymore, why Osama believes the Koran is true ...Actually i am a bit speechless - you can't be serious about that, are you?? At least you must have gotten the NASA and geologists wrong ... Maybe you should check your sources again.

@ Osamayou seem to have some reading impairment. I have take astronomy in university the previous year.

its the less mass the a planet the less gravity it has.

g=GM/(R^2)

this formula to measure a planets gravity disproves it

G=universal constantM= massR=radius

Osama as for the jigsaw puzzle its continental drift you and the original land mass was Pangaea. you didn't even provide us with a link on this topic. Also the cycle of destruction and reconstruction of earth tectonic plated prevents earth from growing larger or smaller. IF the earth was smaller where did all the water go we will be flooded.

You can;t beat the maths of it Osama. The math for gravity goes against you.

so here is eat your own words of "So, get serious, get real, or just get lost."

@Osama have you ever wondered why white dwarf from dead stars have more gravity then earth? its because of enormous amounts of mass in a small radius. the moon has no where as much mass much mass thus the reason it has less gravity and a white dwarf is much more smaller.

so if mass was same for earth and radius changed from bigger to smaller the more gravity would be the case thus stunted growth

1) The earth had the same mass from beginning on and is somehow just expanding2) The earth is growing, because of getting more mass

Case 1) If the earth would be smaller but have the same mass, it would mean the gravity pulls much stronger on the living beings, falsifying your claim for big dinosaurs.Case 2) If the earth gets more Mass, it would have to change its speed around the sun, to remain in a constant Orbit, or change its Orbit and keep the speed. None of this is happening. Further the Moon would have to gain speed, to avoid getting pulled into the earth, due to more mass=more gravity.

This are only 2 very simple points, showing on what weak ground your theory stands!

To give you a 3rd: Is the earth still expanding or not? Will it stop to expand someday? What about the other planets/Sun ... At least no Satelite could ever measure the earth expanding, only the plate movement is being recorded. And where is the Mass coming from anyway?

The only answer i can find is, you are trying to make some kind of joke, to see how the people on this blog react. If you are realy serious about this "growing earth theory" ... well please tell me, you arent.

Once again Osamas silence is deafening. He cant refute something so he ignores it. And the argument about the earth being 10% its current size neither p[roves nor disproves anything. Its a lame duck. No sexual idiom there Osama, in case your mind is searching for one. You havent responded to any of the facts that I presented. The earth was not 10% its size when Mohamed fabricated and plagerized the Quran.

Over long periods of time, mountains are created by tremendous forces in the earth with a steep top usually shaped up to a peak or ridge. Mountains occur more often in oceans than on land; some islands are the peaks of mountains coming out of the water. Mountains are formed by volcanism, erosion, and disturbances or uplift in the earth's crust. Most geologists believe that the majority of mountains are formed by geological forces heat and pressure producing changes under the earth's crust and movements in the earth's crust. They call this movement plate tectonics. This theory sees the crust of the earth divided into a number of vast rigid plates that move about at the rate of a few centimeters a year. The uplift is caused by the collision of plates below the earth's surface that triggers various geologic processes that produce this crustal uplift. Other processes are caused by horizontal compression that is the deformation of crustal strata which produces folds or wrinkles. The Himalayas, for example, were raised by the compression that accompanied collision of the Indian plate with the Eurasian plate. Another example is Europe's Alps and Jura mountains which were also formed by horizontal compression, generated in their case by collision with the African plate and the Eurasian plate.Some ranges of low mountains are raised by nontectonic processes, and are caused by sculpturing effects of differential erosion. Erosion occurs when wind, rain and ice are present. Mountains are impacted by erosion through the combined action of wind, rain and ice changing the shapes of the mountains.

Volcanism causes mountains to form. Examples of mountains formed by periodically dangerous volcanic action are Mount Ranier and Mount Saint Helens in the United States, Mount Erebus in Antarctica, Mount Vesuvius in Italy, and Mount Fuji in Japan. Many of these volcanic mountains have summit craters that still emit steam and debris; others that no longer show signs of volcanic activity may only be dormant, not extinct. Shield volcanoes found in Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea in Hawaii are less spectacular even when quite high.

Many of the major mountain ranges are created when the Earth’s tectonic plates crash together. Because of the tremendous energies involved, the sides of the plates crumple like cars in a head-on collision. The mountain ranges are created because of those crumpling plates. The Indian subcontinent “crashed” into Asia 25 million years ago and created the Himalayan mountain range. In fact, the Himalayans are still growing!The next way that mountains are formed is along fault lines. Blocks of Earth are uplifted and tilted over as two plates grind together. The uplifted part forms a mountain, and the lowered parts are filled in with eroded material. An example of this is the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California.

Another way that mountains are formed is when magma from beneath the Earth’s surface is pushed up, but doesn’t actually crack through. This bulge of magma eventually cools and hardens into hard rock, like granite. The layers of softer rock above the magma erode away and you’re left with a large dome-shaped mountain.Of course, if the magma actually cracks through the surface, you get a volcano. Regular eruptions of lava, ash and rock build up a volcano to large heights. In fact, some of the largest, tallest mountains in the world are volcanoes. For example, Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea are examples of volcanoes. Measured from the bottom of the sea floor, they’re actually taller than Mount Everest.The final way to form a mountain is through erosion. If you have a high plateau, rivers will carve deep channels into the area. Eventually, you have mountains in between the river valleys.

You are seeing things that are not there in the Quran. There is nothing miraculous about it. Your delusional. Now tell us how Eskimos will die of starvation according to the Quran.

Qur'an 2:187It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the fast. They are raiment for you and ye are raiment for them. Allah is Aware that ye were deceiving yourselves in this respect and He hath turned in mercy toward you and relieved you. So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn. Then strictly observe the fast till nightfall and touch them not, but be at your devotions in the mosques. These are the limits imposed by Allah, so approach them not. Thus Allah expoundeth His revelation to mankind that they may ward off (evil)

The link osama is refering to is his article:http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm

You will find some links to videos in it - about the "expanding earth".Thats propably the NASA stuff he is referring to, although its actually some realy small minority of "scientists" that support this theory and the videos are realy far from the actual scientific findings. Its a Video like this he is talking about:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBK8sIrXbNg

Neal Adams and James Maxlow seem to be propagating that weird theory about an expanding earth.The Video i postet previously (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8&feature=related) explains it in a funny way - you should watch it Osama.Oh and btw. Osama, you should think about redesigning your homepage. Not speaking of the content of the article, but just the looks of it.. its realy kind of hard to read - you might want to structure it a bit more and make it "easier" to read. The first impression counts and your website fails in this point! You might get some more people into realy reading your articles if you dont scare them away with your layout.

Osama, it looks like your Allah was wrong. Do you think human beings will be cloned from a cows ear? LOL! You really are a funny little man. Even the first animals to be cloned were not cows. So your Allah gets it wrong on every point. This is to hilarious. So tell me how are people going to be cloned from a cow? HAHAHAHHA!

The first animal cloned was a tadpole. More info below.

1885: Sea Urchin: Hans Adolf Edward Dreisch split a two celled urchin embryo to separate the cells. The two individual cells were allowed to grow and develop and he was left with two genetically identical individuals. 1902: Salamander: Hans Spemann uses a baby's hair to take a two celled salamander embryo and literally pinches them apart. He was left with two genetically identical salamanders. 1952: Frog: Robert Briggs and Thomas King took the nucleus from the frog the desired to clone and put it into the egg from another frog, which had previously had it's nucleus removed. The egg was allowed to duplicate and grow. Unfortunately, many frogs that did grow were deformed. 1975: Rabbit: J. Derek Bromhall used nuclear transfer, like Briggs and King, to clone a rabbit. An advanced embryo, morula, developed after a few days. He considered his experiment a success even though an adult organism did not develop. 1986: Sheep: The ever famous Dolly was not the first cloned sheep. The scientist Steen Willadsen cloned this sheep using a nucleus from an enucleated egg cell. A small shock fuses the two together. The resulting egg is implanted into a surrogate mother.

Permitted to you, upon the night of the Fast, is to go in to your wives, in sexual intercourse: this was revealed as an abrogation of its unlawfulness during the earliest phase of Islam, as well as [an abrogation of] the unlawfulness of eating and drinking after the night prayer; they are a vestment for you, and you are a vestment for them (a metaphor for their embraces or their need for one another); God knows that you have been betraying yourselves, by having sexual intercourse on the eve of the fast: this happened with ‘Umar [b. al-Khattāb] and others, and they apologised to the Prophet (s), and so He has turned to you [relenting], before you even turned in repentance, and He has pardoned you. So now, when it is permitted to you, lie with them, in sexual intercourse, and seek what God has prescribed for you, of sexual intercourse or what it produces of offspring; and eat and drink, [at any time] during the night, until the white thread is distinct, to you, from the black thread at daybreak, that is, the true [moment of daybreak], which explains the white thread, while the explanation of the black thread, namely, the night, has been left out. The whiteness and the darkness of the dawn [twilight] are likened to two black and white threads in the way they stretch out; then complete the fast, from daybreak, to the night, that is, until it arrives, after the setting of the sun; and do not lie with them, your women, while you cleave to the mosques in devotion [to God], while you are residing [therein] with the intention of [performing] i‘tikāf (‘spiritual retreat’). This was a prohibition pertaining to one who used to leave [the mosque], whilst in a state of i‘tikāf, have sexual intercourse with his wife, and then return. Those, rulings mentioned, are God’s bounds, delimited by God for His servants so that they do not overstep them; do not approach them (lā taqrabūhā, is more intense than lā ta‘taddūhā, ‘Do not overstep’, used in verses elsewhere). So, just as He makes clear to you what has been mentioned, God makes clear His signs to people so that they might fear [disobeying] His prohibitions.

Osama if the sun never rises according to the ayat you cannot continue.

and eat and drink, [at any time] during the night, until the white thread is distinct, to you, from the black thread at daybreak, that is, the true [moment of daybreak], which explains the white thread, while the explanation of the black thread, namely, the night, has been left out. The whiteness and the darkness of the dawn [twilight] are likened to two black and white threads in the way they stretch out; then complete the fast, from daybreak, to the night, that is, until it arrives, after the setting of the sun; and do not lie with them, your women, while you cleave to the mosques in devotion

So it does not work. Sorry. Your Allah didnt know about these occurances. And how is man cloned from a cows ear? LOL! OMG Muslims are so delusional it is hilarious.

And I will surely lead them astray, from truth with evil whisperings, and surely I will fill them with desires, I shall cast into their hearts [thoughts] that life will endure, that there will be no resurrection and no reckoning; and surely I will command them and they will cut up the cattle’s ears, and this was done to the [she-camels they called] bahā’ir. And surely I will command them and they will change God’s creation’, [substituting] His religion with unbelief, making lawful what God has made unlawful and making unlawful what God has made lawful. And whoever takes Satan for a patron, following him and obeying him, instead of God, has surely suffered a manifest loss, [one that is] evident, since he will end up in the Fire, made perpetual for him.

And it says that your Allah will lead people to disbelief. So your Allah is responsible for disbelief. It's talking about disbelief. So modern Western advancements occur and you read int9o it want you wish it says instead of what it says and was always regarded as. its so pathetic. Complete and total delusions!

"@Osamahow are you going to refute the math? the maths and numbers goes against you"

RESPONSE:

In http://www.answering-christianity.com/adam_90_feet_tall.htm, you'll see a video in Main Section#2, Sub-Section C, Article 1 the following video:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/low_gravity_larger_bodies.wmv

You have a Harvard University Scientist and a NASA Scientist claiming very clearly that the smaller the planet (THE PROGRAM WAS ABOUT PLANETS LIKE EARTH OUT THERE, AND HOW LIFE ON THEM MIGHT BE LIKE), the smaller its gravity and the larger the bodies will be on it.

Furthermore, I have quotations from Scientific websites quoting other scientists about the same statement.

So if you have a problem with this, then please take it up to NASA and Harvard University. Okie Dokie? :)

"So it does not work. Sorry. Your Allah didnt know about these occurances. And how is man cloned from a cows ear? LOL! OMG Muslims are so delusional it is hilarious."

RESPONSE:

You're obviously playing blasphemous games here, because in the first Noble Verse that I gave you Allah Almighty clearly Stated that those *****who witness the Month of Ramadan, then let them fast it. After you witness it, then the second Noble Verse that I gave you applies, which sets the times on when to fast and when to break the fast.

If Allah Almighty didn't Know about the humans who existed in places that would disable them from OBSERVING/WITNESSING THE HOLY MONTH OF RAMADAN, then He wouldn't have Said that only those who are able to witness the Holy Month must fast it. It's virtually impossible for the community in Mecca and/or Madina to not witness the Holy Month of Ramadan. But because the Holy Quran is for all times and all places, we find your scenario covered.

Your too blinded with hate and blasphemy that Allah Almighty might have sealed your heart and fate to not see anything. I hope I am wrong, but that's what it seems like here in your case. Arguing just to make noise and mockery is never good.

"Osama how did you reach the conclusion this is speaking about cloning when your scholars didnt mention it?"

RESPONSE:

Again, anothing shallow-minded comment that I find myself forced to respond to. No one knew about cloning until only recently. You never even heard about it when you were a kid, yourself. The Prophecy and the Warning are crystal clear and you still argue and reject the Truth. Your heart and fate are sealed I am afraid.

@ OsamaLOL Osama those scientist did a poor job of explaining it. A White dwarf is smaller then a Earth ever wondered why and has several times the gravity of Earth? only explanation is density thus mass is involved Osama.

Look up white dwarfs Osama IF one was to step on it the sun after it goes nova you will be weigh several tons( and most like squash yourself under your own weight)

so unless you can refute the gravity of the white dwarfs. you can;t refute anything Osama.

Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.

you can;t run now when you are confronted with Both NASA and one of the greatest scientist of all time

You seem to mix up all kind of different theories, just to make your case - and dont care about, that these theories contradict each other.To get it clear I will sort it out for you.

First of all, you are right, that the NASA says that a smaller Planet has lesser gravity and if there would be life on it, the living beings could have larger bodies.Second you bring the theory of an "expanding earth".So now lets take a look, what these theories realy say:

The NASA saying that a smaller planet has lesser gravity is always also having lesser mass in mind too. This comes from the fact, that gravity is dependend on mass and not on size (although lesser mass usaly means lesser size). A good example is a black hole. It has (almost) the same mass as the sun it was born from, but the size changed dramaticaly and so the effect of gravity changed drasticly on its surface.A planet orbiting the black hole, wouldnt feel a difference regarding gravity, because the mass stayed the same.

The big problem now is your "expanding earth" theory.It has to have one of two different starting points:1. The earth is gaining mass and this causes the earth to grow2. The earth had always the same mass and is somehow just expanding.

If you take the 1st case it would mean, that due to a change of mass, the gravity would change in relation to other objects. The Moon for example would have to travel faster too, to keep its orbit, or would otherwise be pulled into the earth by the growing gravity. The earth itself would have to change its speed, to maintain its orbit around the sun. To illustrate this for you:Take a bucket with a rope on the handle and hurl it in a circle around you. Remember the speed you needed to bring it up to a specific height. Now fill the Bucket with water (gaining mass) and hurl the bucket with the same speed. You will notice, that you didnt reach the same height. You would have to hurl it faster ... the same thing would have to happen with the earth (bucket) and sun (you hurling the bucket), to maintain a constant orbit.Do you see the problem?

For the 2. starting point: If the earth had always the same mass, the effect of gravity would have been much stronger in the past. A bit like the thing with the black hole. Just as Aaron pointed out, you can do the math yourself. The NASE never stated, that a planet with the same mass but a smaller size would have lesser gravity! They only say a smaller planet (that has lesser mass due to its size) has smaller gravity. This is a very big difference.So with starting point 2, you would have stronger effects of gravity in the past ... and so would have smaller living beings!

To make it worse for you - how do you explain a growth of mass inside the earth, in case of starting point 1. And how do you explain the expansion of the earth and the contradiction within your own theory, that dinosaurs were bigger, but the earth with smaller size and same mass would have stronger gravity effects!?And then, why did no satelite ever measure a growth of earth, but all scientific research supports the traditional theory of plate tectonics and so on?

Oh and it gets even worse for you. After getting into science so much, we could use a little step to theology again.You are claiming, that the Quran is clear and is saying the truth. With your statements about the growing earth you just showed, that the Quran is either not telling the truth, or is not clear about what it says - because you misunderstood it. So either way, it would show, that the Quran is not the word of god!

And somehow I have the feeling, you just ignore everything, that doesnt fit into your theory. But please answer me one question. With what starting point are you going on your expanding earth theory - 1. the earth is expanding by gaining mass or 2. the earth always had the same mass, but is somehow expanding?

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!